Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Euro

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on preparations for possible British entry to the euro zone. [72413]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): As the Prime Minister said on 23 February, the Government believe it important to make practical preparations now if we wish to have the option of considering joining the euro in the next Parliament. The preparations have been supported by a standing committee, which has included the Confederation of British Industry, chambers of commerce, the British Bankers Association, the Bank of England, the Financial Services Industry Association, the Consumers Association, the Trades Union Congress and others. One hundred business organisations have been involved. I can announce that banks, retailers and small businesses will be among those involved in working parties, conducting a business examination of critical issues. Any decision, of course, would involve a referendum of the people of this country.
All political parties in the House have been invited to join a parliamentary committee to consider the work of the standing committee. One of the parties asked—the Conservative party—has refused to join.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that reply. Given that Lord Simon could give no clear idea to the Treasury Committee on Tuesday of how much money the Government will have to spend to prepare for the euro,

over and above the £29 million already incurred, why does the right hon. Gentleman not just admit that, in seeking to drag Britain into the European single currency, which the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, has described as
the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community",
he does so with a cost that he will not calculate, for a benefit that he cannot quantify, at a risk to the British people that he dare not admit?

Mr. Brown: I thought that, when the hon. Gentleman started, he was making a bid to fill the Conservatives' empty chair in the committee. The £29 million which he is talking about is money related to the start of the euro in Europe, for which the Bank of England and others have had to make preparations. It is normal, when legislation is published, to publish the moneys that would have to be allocated to social security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, and that will be done in the normal way. The usual value-for-money test will be met, and Parliament will have a chance to vote on the legislation. We have done everything that is proper.
The question that the Conservative party must answer is this: if we are to decide on computer systems, for example, for social security, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for 10, 20 or 30 years ahead, is it not sensible to build in a facility to include the euro? If the Conservatives abandon or seek to abandon meaningful preparation, they are denying the British people the choice. We have a Conservative party that refuses to consider joining the euro, refuses to consider preparations, and now even refuses to discuss considering preparations. Its motto is: be unprepared.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's behaviour on this issue is in marked contrast to this Government's and to the interests of British business and people? There will be serious implications for business, regardless of whether this country joins the euro, so we must be properly prepared to deal with that—unlike Conservative Members, who just take their bat away and say, "We're not playing."

Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. Two months ago, the Conservative party in the House of Commons lost the support of hereditary peers. Now it has lost the support of business, the CBI, the British Bankers Association and chambers of commerce, which all believe that it is sensible to consider practical preparation. The Conservative party is becoming a marginal force in British politics.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Chancellor aware that the Back-Bench committee to which he refers duly met this morning in a businesslike manner? Can he think of any rational reason why the official Opposition should choose to boycott a committee on which all other United Kingdom parties are represented, including several that are hostile to economic and monetary union?

Hon. Members: Order.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a reasonable question; it is a parliamentary matter.

Dr. Cable: Can the Chancellor explain why the official Opposition may not wish to participate in public scrutiny of expenditure on the changeover plan, which they will otherwise complain is improperly or secretly spent?

Mr. Brown: We hope that every political party in the House would see the national economic interests in this matter, and would participate in the committee. I am very pleased that all other political parties have decided to be part of the group and have sent a nominated representative.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Quislings!

Mr. Brown: I think that that was unparliamentary language—but not from me. It is pleasing that other political parties have chosen to take part. On this matter, the Conservative party has set itself against the whole of British industry and commerce, which, whatever their views, want to make practical preparations so that we are in a position to make a choice. The Conservative party is trying to deny the British people a realistic and fair choice.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Of course my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to undertake these preparations, but the negotiations will obviously be very difficult and complex. Will he confirm that it is his intention to achieve a competitive level for the pound? I ask him for no more details than that because of the difficulties of these negotiations; but will he confirm that, in the interests of manufacturing industry, he will try to achieve that competitive level of the pound?

Mr. Brown: Our policy is for exchange rate stability, and that is the policy that matters as far as the euro is concerned. As for British industry, I think my right hon. Friend, who has taken a strong interest in manufacturing industry for a long time, will agree that manufacturers throughout the country are worried about the fact that a political party in the House wants to stand aside from the preparations that are necessary in the national interest.
I read this morning that the shadow Chancellor is to lead national demonstrations to the House of Commons, including anti-Europeans, Europeans and Euro-sceptics. I believe that people will find it ironic that the man who signed the Maastricht treaty is now leading demonstrations against that treaty.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Chancellor just mentioned exchange rate stability, but, as he knows, the value of the euro has steadily deteriorated since its launch. He may or may not agree with his distinguished predecessor, Lord Healey, that at this rate it will be out of sight completely in five years. But what message does he have for savers, for those on fixed incomes and for those with building society accounts, who already, over the past two months, have seen a deterioration that amounts almost to one year's complete income?

Mr. Brown: What worries savers most is the idea of a return to the boom-bust policies of the Conservative Government. The country will not forget that inflation went as high as 21 per cent. in the 1980s. Inflation is now about 2½ per cent. That is our target, and we shall stick to it. This party—and this Government—is the low-inflation party in this country.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Chancellor share my puzzlement that the statement that we just heard is the first call in the Chamber that I can remember for higher interest rates? Does he agree that the Prime Minister's statement on the national changeover plan has been warmly welcomed throughout the country? Did he notice the MORI opinion poll in The Times last week, showing for the first time a majority of people in favour of, not opposed to, British entry to the single currency; and does that not emphasise the reasons why we are hearing the shrill voices from the Conservatives today—the shrill voices of desperation, as they realise that public opinion is leaving them behind?

Mr. Brown: I believe that, whatever people in this country feel about the euro, they feel that a Government should make practical preparations to give the people a realistic choice; and they will find it very strange indeed that the Conservative party has so marginalised itself that it will not even participate in the discussions about preparations. The Conservatives are now the rump of a sect of a faction of a once-national party.

Mr. Francis Maude: What estimate have the Government made of the conversion costs either to business or to the taxpayer of Britain joining the euro? Why was no such estimate included in the national changeover plan published last week? Why, in the time scale for membership set out in that plan, was there no mention of when the most important event of all would take place—the act of monetary union, the irrevocable locking of exchange rates?

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Member would send his representatives along to the committee, they would consider those very issues. The point of the outline changeover plan is that it is a consultative exercise; it is for business and Government to share their insights and ideas about the necessary arrangements that would have to be made for a changeover. However, the Conservative party wants to deprive the country of the realistic option of making a choice.

Mr. Maude: That just will not do. The Government appear to be so sure that membership of the single currency will be in Britain's interests that they are ready to commit large sums—tens of millions of pounds, the Prime Minister said—of taxpayers' money now, and to ask business to do the same, on the arrogant assumption that the British people will want to join it. How can they possibly be so sure when they have not even bothered to estimate the costs, let alone the benefits?
Is not the Chancellor's untypical coyness on the timing of the exchange rate locking explained by the fact that, if it was to be early in the time scale, he would have to tell the Bank of England to shadow the euro before the general election, contrary to what the Prime Minister said last week; and, if it was to be later, there is no possible reason for anyone to spend money on it now? Does not his reticence on the subject give the game away? The plan is about edging Britain ever closer to membership, in an attempt to close off the option of Britain prospering outside.

Mr. Brown: The whole point of the national changeover plan is to have a discussion of the implications for business and others of the option to join the euro. The whole point of the Conservative opposition to that is to deny us a realistic choice in the next Parliament.
With regard to preparations, business—to which the right hon. Gentleman's question supposedly relates—is joining us in examining those issues. On dates, we have made it absolutely clear that the issue is whether we meet the economic tests. We have not set a date. We have set tests that must be met, and we shall evaluate them in the next Parliament.
The problem for the Conservative party is that there are two realistic positions—to be in favour of the euro in principle or to be against in principle. The right hon. Gentleman and those on the Back Benches are against. The Leader of the Opposition says that he would rule out joining for 10 years. The shadow Chancellor is now ruling out preparations for 10 years. The party is split asunder by the issue of Europe.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The House understands the practical preparations that are to take place in terms of economic measures, and the provisions for a referendum. What measures are to be taken on a European scale in respect of the democracy of the European Union, in order to make it a fit body to run the euro?

Mr. Brown: We have made our proposals for economic and political reform in Europe, and we shall continue to pursue them. We have made proposals on jobs, capital markets and competition policy. We have made proposals about other issues relating to the operation of the European Parliament, and we shall continue to push the agenda that is right for Britain in Europe.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal National Lifeboat Institution

Mr. Bob Russell: If he will amend the VAT regulations to give a nil rating for maintenance work to Royal National Lifeboat Institution boathouses. [72414]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on its 175th anniversary. The RNLI has a wide range of reliefs for goods and some services relating to lifeboats. The United Kingdom can apply zero rates to a specified range of goods under a provision of the sixth

VAT directive. Under that provision, the UK cannot be forced to give up any of its existing zero rates, but cannot introduce any new ones.

Mr. Russell: I join the Minister in congratulating the RNLI. It is a happy coincidence that today is that anniversary. May I suggest to the Minister that it is unfair to put VAT on saving lives at sea? For every person saved in the past year, the VAT cost was £110. That may be a drop in the ocean in terms of the Chancellor's expenditure, but perhaps that money could be better spent. After all, it comes from voluntary donations from the public. The VAT that the Chancellor collects is the equivalent of the cost of 13 new inshore lifeboats. Will the Minister consider introducing a nil rate for organisations engaged in saving life? If she wanted to, she could find a way through the red tape.

Mrs. Roche: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier reply. I remind him that the RNLI is already given a great deal of help. VAT zero rate relief is available for new boathouses, new lifeboats, and tractors and other equipment for launching and recovering lifeboats. The repair and maintenance of lifeboat equipment are also approved.
The Government take charities and giving to charities seriously. That is why the Government give charities almost £2 billion each year, including some £200 million VAT relief. That is a record of which we are extremely proud.

Mr. Alan Simpson: The Minister will know that the sixth VAT directive also allows the variation of VAT rates in relation to social housing projects. Will she look again at the relief that has been given so far on home insulation products—

Madam Speaker: Order. This question relates directly to the RNLI.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Why should British people who want to maximise their support for the RNLI or, for example, church repairs, be thwarted simply because European Commission officials want a neat and tidy common VAT regime and oppose selective zero rating? Which comes first: the wishes of British people doing good work in their communities, or Brussels?

Mrs. Roche: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman, but experience should perhaps teach me not to be. That comes as something of a cheek from a member of the previous Government, who broke their election promise by putting VAT on fuel when they said they would not, leaving this Government to cut it. We have kept our promises; they did not. Clearly, he does not understand the sixth directive either.

Mr. Michael Clapham: When my hon. Friend considers the RNLI's VAT position, will she also consider education action zones and ensure that they are put on the same footing—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not having hon. Members abuse questions in that way.

Oral Answers to Questions — Taxation (Married Couples)

Mr. Tim Loughton: What estimate he has made of the tax levels paid by the average married couple on (a) 1 March and (b) 1 May 1997. [72415]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The amount of tax paid by a married couple depends on several factors, including the age of the partners and the way their income is split between them.

Mr. Loughton: That was very informative. It is a shame that the Minister did not follow the Prime Minister's example yesterday and admit that the tax burden under Labour has risen and is continuing to rise. Will he come clean too and admit that married people with mortgages are paying considerably more income tax, let alone stealth taxes, to this Government than they did to the previous one?

Mr. Milburn: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The cuts in interest rates in recent months have benefited mortgage holders, and mortgage rates are at a 30-year low. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Kali Mountford: When my right hon. Friend considers the taxation of married couples, will he recognise that children are at the heart of marriage and therefore take full account of the report on child benefit taxation published today by the Select Committee on Social Security? Will he ensure that the Government fully consider the role of children within the family and fully support the lowest-paid families with children?

Mr. Milburn: Of course we shall carefully consider the Select Committee's report, which was published an hour or so ago. However, from April this year, 6 million people are set to benefit from a record rise in child benefit rates. Our policy has been to increase child benefit rates; the Conservative party's policy was to freeze them.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chief Secretary confirm research by the House of Commons Library showing that, under this Government, the number of tax rates in the tax system has increased from the eight that they inherited to 54? Will he try to square that fact with the Chancellor's assertion in opposition and in government that Labour would simplify the tax system and remove loopholes?

Mr. Milburn: If I were the hon. Gentleman, given the Liberal Democrats' tax policy, I would be extremely cautious about lecturing the Government. They seem to think that a penny on income tax will increase spending on the NHS, education, transport, schools, hospitals, social security and welfare benefits. The Government have cut taxes. We have cut corporation tax and national insurance contributions, and the lesson that I draw from that is that people are better off with Labour.

Yvette Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a curious position to hold to express concern about the tax paid by families and at the same time oppose the working families tax credit,

which will make low-income families better off, thereby effectively calling for a tax hike of £17 on a family earning £220 a week?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition are addicted to tax hikes. If they had their way, they would abolish the working families tax credit. That would affect 1 million of the poorest families in the land and leave them facing a tax hike of £17 a week. It is this Government who are committed to supporting families through supporting children. The Opposition's record does not bear scrutiny.

Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Chief Secretary go away and work out that there is a difference between income tax and interest rates? He was asked about income tax. Why will he not admit that a typical married couple with a mortgage are paying more than £200 a year more, in income tax alone, as a result of Labour's stealth tax increases? Income tax rates may be the same, but what most taxpayers pay in income tax has risen. Why, for once in his life, will he not come clean and admit that his stealth tax increases have hit precisely the ordinary married families that the Prime Minister promised to protect?

Mr. Milburn: I tell the right hon. Gentleman three things. First, when he was a Treasury Minister, the then Tory Government cut the rate of the married couples allowance. Secondly, married couples are set to benefit this year from our increase in child benefit rates, which his party opposes. One final thing: the dividing line between us and them on tax is that we keep our promises and they break theirs.

Oral Answers to Questions — Capital Gains Tax (Farmers)

Mr. Chris Mullin: What plans he has to review the exemption for farmers from capital gains tax on agricultural land sold for development; and if he will make a statement. [72416]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): There is no exemption for farmers from capital gains tax on agricultural land sold for development.

Mr. Mullin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the letter that she sent me, which arrived this morning, but I am not at all convinced. This looks like a scam, and one that benefits speculators rather than farmers. It also seems to be utterly at odds with our policy of discouraging development of green-field sites. Will she have another look at that measure?

Dawn Primarolo: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is at least receiving my letters, even if I am chided a little for their timing. On his serious point, he believes, to use his own words, that there is a scam in respect of capital gains roll-over relief. I have told him before that we have no evidence of that, and that it is not possible for the situation that he describes to occur; but, given his insistence, and if he has information that we, as the tax authorities, do not have, I am happy to meet him to pursue this issue.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister take it from me that the real problem for farmers


in recent years has not been exemptions, or anything else of the kind, but the impossibly low incomes that they currently enjoy?

Dawn Primarolo: With regard to capital gains tax and the impact on farmers when they pay it, the legislation makes clear what happens. I assume that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the capital gains tax reforms undertaken last year by the Government to assist entrepreneurs and to make the system simpler.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise, however, that, because of the collapse in agricultural incomes, which are charted by the Government's own figures, it would be wholly inappropriate to pursue environmental ends—which can be better achieved by planning regulation—by tinkering with the tax system, depriving those farmers who might have legitimately sold land for development, with all the necessary approvals?

Dawn Primarolo: The capital gains tax regulations are quite clear, as is their impact on the issue that the right hon. Gentleman describes. I shall take his further comments about capital gains tax as a late Budget submission.

Mr. Christopher Gill: While considering the question of farmers' taxation, will the Minister consider a question of which she has already been given notice? Will she make it possible for farmers who trade in their private capacity, and not as limited companies, to enjoy the benefits in respect of offsetting losses against profits that they would enjoy if they were subject to corporation tax?

Dawn Primarolo: I say again that the way in which the capital gains tax system impinges on farmers is clear. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard the comments about future reform.

Oral Answers to Questions — Taxation

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the balance between direct and indirect taxation. [72417]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): The Government are building a tax system that is fair and that supports work, enterprise and families. That is why we pledged not to increase the basic or top rates of income tax, and not to extend VAT to food, children's clothes, books and newspapers and public transport fares. We stand by those pledges.

Mr. Wareing: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In 1978–79, at the end of the last Labour Government, taxes on products and production were 3.9 per cent. of total taxation. By 1997–98, that figure had risen to 39.1 per cent. Could the Chancellor consider, as an alternative to a 10p rate of income tax, reducing

regressive indirect taxation and shifting the balance further towards direct taxation, which is more progressive and more equitable?

Mr. Milburn: We judge tax proposals according to a number of criteria, one of which is fairness. We have made it clear repeatedly that, when we are able to do so and when we judge that the time is right—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the Minister. He will please address the House.

Mr. Milburn: We want to introduce a 10p tax rate when the time is right. Some of the other measures that we have introduced, such as cuts in VAT on fuel and changes to the national insurance contributions rates, are major steps towards a fairer tax system. That is the Government's approach, and we shall continue to advocate and implement it.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: On Tuesday, we were told that the Prime Minister was lecturing his socialist colleagues in Europe on the lessons that Europe could learn from what he described as the extraordinary capacity of the United States to create wealth and work. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was forced to admit that, far from emulating the American example, it was the Government's plan to increase both the direct and indirect tax burden on the British economy. When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer stop undermining the Prime Minister?

Mr. Milburn: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is making a late bid for a Front-Bench job, but he knows fine well that last year's pre-Budget report set out the position very clearly indeed. The tax burden under this Government is projected to be less than that for which the Tories had planned.
The Tories increased taxes before the general election; they had planned to continue to do so if, heaven forbid, they had won that election; and, if they had their way now, they would continue to increase the tax burden, most notably by getting rid of the working families tax credit. I should be interested to know the right hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues' views on VAT on fuel, because the last Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer pledged to increase it to 17.5 per cent.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: When considering direct taxes and duties, should we not take into account the amount of beer and cigarettes that are daily brought across the channel for sale in this country to avoid tax and duties? That puts our people out of work. It is appropriate to discuss that issue in a week when the Stena line is organising trips for people to go across the channel to buy cars, which will have implications for our motor industry.

Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend knows, those matters are rightly for my right hon. Friend's Budget, which will be announced next Tuesday.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Which of the following does the Chief Secretary regret the most: promising before the election not to raise taxes, the fact that the Government have broken that promise by


raising taxes by £40.7 billion, or the fact that they have been caught out raising taxes by the Prime Minister's gaffe in the House of Commons yesterday?

Mr. Milburn: What I regret is that the hon. Gentleman has not learned the lessons of history. It was the Tories who broke their promises on tax. In 1979, they promised not to increase VAT, but at their first Budget they increased it—indeed, they doubled it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen, but I remind him of what the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said on 27 March 1992:
We have no need and no plans to extend the scope of VAT.
Within a year, the Tory Government had increased VAT and had extended it to fuel. If it had not been for the Labour party and this Parliament, they would have continued to increase it.

Oral Answers to Questions — Small Businesses

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What new steps he is taking to promote small businesses. [72418]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In the last Budget, we announced a range of measures to help small businesses to invest for the future, including the cut in the small companies' rate of corporation tax to 20p from April, enhanced first-year capital allowances at 40 per cent. extended to July this year and a new capital gains tax taper for individuals, reducing the effective rate for those investing in business assets to 10 per cent. after 10 years. Small businesses benefit most of all from a move from the boom-bust economy to an economy based on stability.

Mr. Sheerman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the findings of recent research, which suggest that a high percentage of small businesses not only have no information technology systems, but do not possess a computer? Is it not about time that we gave small businesses real incentives to move into the computer age, even if that means introducing a tax scale of some kind—or, indeed, giving universities a role in the improvement of the systems available to small businesses, and in the education of those businesses?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for chairing, this morning, the first meeting of the parliamentary committee on the euro.
My hon. Friend's point about small businesses is well taken. A third of a million small businesses have access to the internet and to electronic commerce. We intend to raise that figure substantially, and, working with business, we shall do what we can to achieve our aim.

Mr. John Townend: When I listen to Ministers, I sometimes wonder whether they have any idea of the problems involved in running a small business. I know of those problems from personal experience.
Does the Chancellor appreciate that the small tax reductions that he has mentioned will not help businesses on the borderline, some of which have been driven into losses by the burdens imposed on small business? Those burdens have increased dramatically since the Government came to power. Paternity rights, the social

chapter, the working time directive, the hygiene regulations and the minimum wage will all cause more and more small businesses to go before industrial tribunals, where they will face a maximum penalty of not £12,000 but £50,000, which could put many of them out of business.

Mr. Brown: We will take no lectures from a Conservative party that unilaterally imposed statutory sick pay on every employer in the country. As for the climate for business, the hon. Gentleman, who was an MP at the time, will remember that, in the early 1990s, inflation rose above 10 per cent. and interest rates rose to 15 per cent. for a year and remained above 10 per cent. for four years, and 1 million small businesses went under as a result.
What businesses want most of all is the stability that is being provided by a Labour Government. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, small businesses welcome the cut in tax from 23p to 20p. We have yet to hear whether the Conservative party would rescind that cut, along with working families tax credit.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tax Demands (Self-employed)

Mr. Paul Truswell: What plans he has to improve the accuracy of tax demands sent to self-employed people. [72419]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): To help self-employed people to manage their tax affairs within the new self-assessment system, the Inland Revenue sends taxpayers statements of account which detail the current tax position. The Inland Revenue is constantly looking at ways of improving its service to taxpayers, and has recently improved the format of self-assessment statements.

Mr. Truswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that, as well as overtaxing the incomes of 800,000 self-employed people, the Inland Revenue has added insult to injury by enclosing with its letter of apology a guide that would have overtaxed the intellect of the average genius, let alone Members of Parliament? Has she any plans to introduce a numeracy and literacy strategy, so that, next year, we can have plain English, plain dealing and plain sailing?

Mrs. Roche: I am well aware of the problems identified by my hon. Friend, and I take to heart his comment about plain English. I shall certainly undertake to ensure that his remarks are passed on.
Of course the Inland Revenue regrets the problems caused by the statement error. It decided to send all the statements, despite the fault in some, because taxpayers needed to know what to pay by 31 January. The fault was put right before statements were issued in February. Work is in hand to ensure that such faults do not slip through in future. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept those reassurances.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister join me in calling on the Inland Revenue to impose the same penalties on itself for overcharging self-employed people in their tax assessment, and to repay


interest on the amounts overpaid? Stiff penalties could be imposed on the Inland Revenue, so that the tax assessment might be more correct in the first instance.

Mrs. Roche: It is very unlikely that the situation that the hon. Lady describes will arise because of the late notification, which this was all about, but I am interested that the hon. Lady, for whom I have some regard—[HON. MEMBERS: "Some regard?"] There are limits beyond which even I will not go. I am grateful to her for raising the question of interest on late payment. Perhaps she might consider her party paying interest on broken promises.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) in asking the Minister to prevail on the Inland Revenue to be more efficient and to show greater efficiency in its dealings with the self-taxation system? Because of the Inland Revenue's lack of efficiency, returns are being sent to constituents and demands are being made for interest payments on unpaid tax when the tax has been paid. However, because of lack of efficiency, the Inland Revenue is not prepared to accept its mistakes. I understand that many constituents are paying interest by default. I ask the Minister to take the matter up and to demand greater efficiency in the Inland Revenue.

Mrs. Roche: I say openly that, if my hon. Friend has some examples and cases to put to me, I will look into them as quickly as possible. If mistakes are made, we will always be happy to take responsibility and to look into them, but the Inland Revenue is constantly looking at its service, through consultation, and improvements are made all the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — Single Currency

Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will list the constitutional issues which he assessed as not creating a bar to United Kingdom membership of the single currency. [72420]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): In his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly the Government's view of the constitutional implications of joining the single currency. Sharing a common monetary policy would represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty, so the constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an overriding one. Rather, what it means is that, for monetary union to be right for the UK, the economic benefits should be clear and unambiguous, and the final decision should be made by the British people in a referendum.

Dr. Lewis: Is it not clear that the Minister has just dodged the whole point of the question? It was not about the pooling of economic sovereignty, but about the loss of democratic sovereignty and democratic accountability.
Given that continental politicians have repeatedly admitted that one of the main purposes of economic and monetary union is to create a political entity—a single state in Europe—will the Minister now confirm the logical implication of the Government's position, which is that, if the five economic, and they are only economic,

tests that the Government have set are fulfilled, there is no amount of loss of political and democratic sovereignty and accountability that they would not be content to put up with?

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear why the Conservative party is completely marginalised on one of the most important questions that faces this country. Again, he has made it clear that the Conservative party—the anti-European Conservative party—is saying that, even if joining a single currency were good for Britain, for the economy and for jobs, it would be against it and against it for ever. The Labour party is the party that speaks for the British interest.

Mr. Denis MacShane: There are constitutional issues at stake involving parliamentary democracy. In the past 24 hours, we have seen two major developments. An all-party committee set up in good faith to allow Parliament to help business to prepare for the single currency has been boycotted by the Tory party, and boycotting is a 19th-century weapon. Also, has not the shadow Chancellor said that he is so indifferent to the House that he proposes to lead the Tory party on to the streets of this country? It has become the party of Trotskyists on European issues. We have "Militant Maude and the Tory Trots against Europe".

Ms Hewitt: I am sure that you will be as grateful as the rest of the House, Madam Speaker, for the fact that my hon. Friend asked that question in English. He is absolutely right. When the Conservative party was in government, it opted out of the social chapter which would have given the British people fair standards at work. It has now opted out of the cross-party group on preparations for the euro and out of defending the national interest. It is wholly marginalised in the debate.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister recognise that my constituents and businesses—particularly small businesses—throughout the country think that the most important constitutional issue is that of the Government spending taxpayers' money before they have any democratic mandate to do so? Will she admit that the words "changeover plan" are seen by people and businesses as a handover plan, handing over British democratic sovereignty without any mandate to do so? If she and her friends in the Government were honest, they would have a referendum now. They have no mandate to spend a penny piece of taxpayers' money without a referendum—they know that they would lose it, so they dare not hold it now.

Ms Hewitt: Let me stress once again that we have made it clear that the final decision on whether to join a successful single currency will be made by the British people in a referendum. Businesses want economic stability, low interest rates, low inflation and practical support to ensure that they can take advantage of the opportunities created by the euro. The Government are giving them that support. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak to those on his Front Bench and urge them to join the cross-party group that we have set up to ensure that there is parliamentary involvement in the preparations for the possible decision to join.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Conservative party were logical


on the question of democratic accountability, it would be seeking more powers for the European Parliament so as to be able properly to control the Council of Ministers and demanding less secrecy in that Council? It would also be insisting that the second and third pillars on the operation of powers, created by their Government, should become answerable to democratically elected Parliaments and not dealt with in secret by Ministers of Justice. There might then be a degree of sincerity in the Conservatives' words.

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right in his criticism of the official Opposition. It is impossible for them to have any intelligent view on the matters to which he refers when they are now so clearly the anti-European party. The Government will continue to ensure that British interests are defended by our policy of constructive engagement in the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tax Harmonisation

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on the impact on the United Kingdom economy of proposed European tax harmonisation measures. [72421]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government will continue to judge every tax proposal according to the United Kingdom national interest. We will not support any action at a European level that will threaten the competitive position of British business or harm investment and jobs in Britain.

Mr. Paterson: Does the Minister fully understand that, thanks to the fact that the total tax burden in the United Kingdom is 20 to 25 per cent. lower than that in the euro zone, in the past six years the United Kingdom has created 2.5 million more jobs than the whole of the euro zone countries put together? Therefore—as she has just said that it is a matter of vital national interest—will she promise to the House and to the United Kingdom that the Government will use the national veto to prevent any tax harmonisation upwards, as was recently demanded by Mr. Günter Verheugen, the German Minister for Europe?

Dawn Primarolo: That was a very interesting intervention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that we are a low-tax Government.

Ms Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the pressures from the Germans for tax harmonisation are based on pressures from their own financial institutions, and that there is concern about those pressures in our own financial sector? Does she agree also that the strong constructive role played by our Government is the best way of countering those pressures, and that use of the types of tactic employed by Conservative Members—with all their prevarications, splits, U-turns and muddles—would leave our financial institutions and economy very much exposed?

Dawn Primarolo: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members, that the Government believe that tax harmonisation is not the way forward for Europe. Our European partners agree with us that Europe's priority is the promotion of employment reform

sand competitive markets, to achieve higher levels of employment and prosperity. That is the Government's policy, and we shall continue to pursue it.

Mr. John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady has stated on a number occasions that the Government are opposed to the proposed European withholding tax and to further European tax harmonisation. Will she therefore take this opportunity to condemn Mrs. Pauline Green, leader of the European socialist group, and other British Labour Members of the European Parliament who voted for the 20 per cent. withholding tax and for further extension of tax harmonisation to cover capital gains tax?

Dawn Primarolo: The Government's position on the draft directive on taxation of savings, which is under discussion, is very clear. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made it very clear that we shall not agree to anything that damages competitive markets. Moreover, he is in no position to say anything about disagreements within parties on any subject, particularly Europe.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the issue of European tax harmonisation one that could be raised in the new House of Commons euro committee, which the Tories are boycotting? Will my hon. Friend tell me who will represent Conservative opinion in my constituency in favour of the euro? Tories in my constituency who are in favour of the euro would like their voice to be heard in the Westminster committee. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that.

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that Conservative voters in my hon. Friend's constituency will make up their own minds, as they did at the previous general election, and decide that their interests are best served by voting Labour—which is there, defending their interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — Working Families Tax Credit

Mr. Steve Webb: What assessment he has made of the transfer of funds from women to men which will occur as a result of the implementation of the working families tax credit. [72422]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are clear that there is no compulsory transfer of funds from women to men because of implementation of the working families tax credit.

Mr. Webb: I am disappointed that, even with two weeks' notice, the hon. Lady could not answer my question. Does she accept that £900 million in family credit is paid to women in couples in which men are the principal breadwinner? Does she accept also that the Inland Revenue is assuming that two thirds of employees receiving the tax credit will receive it in their pay packet? Will she therefore confirm that, on that basis, several hundred million pounds will go from women to men as a direct result of Government policy? Does she think that that is in the interests of the children?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand the figures. The facts are that 50 per cent. of those who receive family credit, and who will


receive working families tax credit, are lone parents; that, in 23 per cent. of couples, women are the main or sole earner; and that a good proportion of the 300,000 people he mentioned already have their money paid into a joint account. As he well knows, we have made it clear that, when there is a dispute about to whom the working families tax credit should be paid, the Inland Revenue will pay directly to the parent with care. The proposition that he has put forward is not true.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the combination of our employment relations legislation, which will give enormous rights to women who work part-time, and the working families tax credit is likely to bring about a significant shift in economic power from men to women?

Dawn Primarolo: I should like to add to that list the benefit to women from the substantial increase in child benefit that we have introduced. The Conservative party froze child benefit. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has not yet complimented us on that increase.

Oral Answers to Questions — Married Couples Allowance

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about the future of the married couples allowance. [72423]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Treasury Ministers have received many representations on that issue.

Mr. Amess: Given that there is no boom in the economy in Southend, West, but plenty of bust, that the public had to work 147 days last year just to pay their taxes and that the style of the Government is to leak policy outside the House before reporting it here, are we supposed to feel better when the married couples allowance is not abolished next week? How will the Government continue to deliver their election promises while supposedly not raising taxes?

Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine will welcome the fact that the Government have cut VAT on fuel, cut national insurance contributions for employers, cut corporation tax, cut small business tax rates and cut capital gains tax. We have also introduced the biggest-ever increase in child benefit. Is he telling us that the Conservative party would not only repeal the working families tax credit, but reverse the increase in child benefit?

Oral Answers to Questions — Pensioners

Helen Jackson: What plans he has to review the taxation liabilities of pensioners. [72424]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government have announced a £2.5 billion package of support for pensioners. That will include a minimum tax guarantee, so that no elderly person will pay income tax unless his or her income rises

above a specified level. As the pre-Budget report confirmed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might have more to say on that in next week's Budget.

Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply and look forward to the Budget statement next week. Does she recognise that, although falling interest rates are excellent for manufacturing, mortgage payers and many others, they result in a drop in income for pensioners above the benefit level who depend partly on interest from their savings? Does she recognise the importance of what they have gained from the reductions in VAT on fuel and what they stand to gain from the free eye tests that will be introduced in April? Does she also accept that plans to enable that worthy group to benefit further from a Labour Government should be a priority?

Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the many measures that the Government have introduced to help elderly people. I am sure that she agrees that one of the greatest threats to the living standards of elderly people is inflation rates at the levels that we had during the boom and bust years of the Conservative Government. Low inflation is good for elderly people, but, to help them further with their savings, we are introducing the new individual savings accounts from April.

Oral Answers to Questions — Small Businesses

Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent consultations he has held with representatives of small businesses on the levels of business taxation. [72425]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Chancellor believes in the importance of consultation and has encouraged businesses to provide their views. He, his Ministers and his officials have met a great number of representatives of small businesses on a variety of occasions.

Mr. Boswell: As a former Minister with responsibility for small firms, the Financial Secretary will accept the importance of the small firms sector in encouraging entrepreneurialism and creating jobs—the stated objectives—as no doubt the Chancellor will as well. Will she concede that those small businesses are paying at least their fair share of the £5 billion a year extra tax burden imposed on British business, as estimated by the Confederation of British Industry? In addition, they are probably paying a disproportionate share of the regulatory burden of the additional requirements imposed by the Government. Will she take those factors properly into account when giving advice to her colleagues during the formulation of the Budget next week?

Mrs. Roche: Let me agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point—the importance of small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy. However, he is absolutely wrong. Small businesses have benefited enormously from the tax cuts introduced by the Government. That is why we have the best regime for businesses in Europe.
On deregulation, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives who, when in government, imposed regulation after regulation. It was interesting that the Government in which the hon. Gentleman was a Minister

established a deregulation task force. That task force, on which the Shadow Chancellor sat when he was out of Parliament, contained more Tory ex-Members of Parliament than small businesses—quite contrary to ours.

Iraq

Mr. Tam Dalyell: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to the rules of engagement in relation to military action over Iraq.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Madam Speaker, our aircrew, carrying out the vital humanitarian task of enforcing the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, face almost daily attempts by Saddam Hussein to kill them. He is making every effort to shoot down UK and US aircraft—even offering bounties to air defence units.
Since the end of Operation Desert Fox, there have been more than 100 violations of the no-fly zones. Coalition aircraft have been fired on by Iraqi surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery, and have been otherwise threatened more than 50 times. Typically endangering the safety of his own people, Saddam is even using heavy surface-to-surface rockets as improvised anti-aircraft weapons.
Let us be clear that there is still a pressing need to maintain these patrols and the no-fly zones. Saddam's brutal repression of his people is well documented—including by the UN. That is, of course, why the no-fly zones were established in the north in April 1991 and in the south in August 1992. His internal security organisations continue to persecute all opponents of the regime on the ground. Without our continued presence, he would be free to do so in the air as well. We are not prepared to countenance that.
Saddam's latest campaign against coalition aircrew is sustained and direct, and leaves us with a stark choice: to give up, and let him do his worst to the Iraqi Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south, or to act to protect those flying these legitimate humanitarian patrols. We cannot simply ignore these attacks.
We have, therefore, tailored the rules of engagement to reflect the escalation by the Iraqis of their systematic attacks and threats to our aircraft. I hope that the House will understand that I am not prepared to go into detail, as neither we nor the US would wish to provide Iraq with information that could be used to increase the threat to our people.
I can assure the House that this adaptation of the rules of engagement in no way represents a change to either our policy towards maintaining the no-fly zones or the purpose of our long-standing patrols. The tailoring of the rules of engagement merely reinforces our position, which we have made clear all along—that we will take robust and appropriate defensive measures to prevent Saddam from endangering the lives of our brave aircrew.
Of course Saddam's propaganda machine is quick to exaggerate the effects of coalition action on the Iraqi people. I can assure the House that the only targets attacked are legitimate military ones. They include the communications facilities targeted by the United States over the weekend, which now appear also to have carried part of the Iraq-Turkey oil pipeline control network. Damage to the oil pipeline control system is regrettable, but the pipeline itself was not damaged and we understand that the oil flow resumed in less than three days.
Furthermore, there was no interruption to the export of oil because significant stocks are held at the Turkish end of the pipeline.
We have limited ourselves strictly to proportionate responses to threats against coalition aircraft, using precision-guided weapons to minimise casualties. Of course such action is regrettable, but Saddam's attacks leave no alternative, other than to abandon our patrols, with all that that would mean for the Iraqi Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. If he stops attacking our aircraft, we will stop acting against him in response.
Just as in Operation Desert Fox, the responsibility for the military action lies firmly at Saddam Hussein's door.

Mr. Dalyell: Where is all this to end? Is it not a fact that more ordnance has rained down on Iraq since Desert Fox than during it, and that more bombs and missiles were used during Desert Fox than in the whole of the Gulf war? How can the rules of engagement be changed to that extent without a declaration of war? In the absence of such a declaration, what would be the position of a pilot, British or American, who had to bale out of an aircraft that was hit or had malfunctioned?
How does my right hon. Friend respond to President Demirel of Turkey, whose statement was that the strikes against the pipeline were "unacceptable"?
My right hon. Friend refers to the Shia. Those of us who visited Basra and the marshes in 1994 cannot conceive that bombs will do anything but strengthen the position of the regime, rather than weakening it. The Foreign Minister of Iraq is himself a Shia. Reference may be made to the brutal murder in Najaf of Ayatollah Muhammad al-Sadr, but there are grave doubts about whether the regime was in any way responsible for something that would have been against its own interests.
Is the so-called threat against the Shia, the Marsh Arabs and indeed the Iraqi Kurds—the Health Minister, Dr. Mubarak, is a Kurd—such as to justify the traumatisation of children, old people and a whole society? Where is all this to end? Can we have a precise statement of the objective of bombing following the change in the rules of engagement?

Mr. Robertson: To answer my hon. Friend's clear question about where this will end: it will end when Saddam Hussein complies with the resolutions to which he signed up at the end of the Gulf war and stops being a threat to his neighbours and to the region. That is the simple answer. I understand my hon. Friend's attention to this subject, and I do not for a moment question his sincerity, but I find it extraordinary that he could make so lengthy a contribution without once mentioning the threat to our aircrew, who are patrolling the no-fly zones for purely humanitarian reasons and put their lives in danger every day they carry out the duty that we have placed on them.
I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to draw a comparison between Operation Desert Fox, which was a 72-hour campaign designed to diminish and degrade Saddam Hussein's military capability and his ability to threaten his neighbours, and the purely defensive operation which is involved in the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq today. We are engaged in defensive operations to ensure that Saddam Hussein's objective and ambition, which is to kill our pilots,


is frustrated. I made that clear in what I said. We have only one option, which is to stay and protect the people whom the no-fly zones were put in place to protect.
My hon. Friend asked how we could make alterations to the rules of engagement without a declaration of war. We are not at war with Saddam Hussein or with the Iraqi regime. Our planes are acting strictly in accordance with international law and they are taking defensive steps to prevent them from being attacked by the Iraqis. My hon. Friend asked about the position of a pilot who might be downed over Iraq, and, indeed, bounties are being offered to anti-aircraft crew by Saddam Hussein to achieve that. The lack of a declaration of war in no way relieves the Iraqi regime of its obligations under the Geneva conventions to anybody who may be involved in a situation such as that which my hon. Friend describes.
My hon. Friend mentioned the comments yesterday by President Demirel about the attack on the communications centre beside the oil pipeline. I understand that President Demirel has now been briefed on the fact that that was in response to a precise attack on coalition aircraft and that the Turkish Government fully understand that the action was taken not against the pipeline, but against the control and communications centre, which appeared to have a dual-use function.
My hon. Friend seems to imply that the Arabs in the south of Iraq are safe and, without the coalition aircraft, they would come to no harm. He suggests that, because there is a Shia Muslim and a Kurdish Minister in the Government of Iraq—which is almost a contradiction in terms—that in some way protects the people of the south and north. It does not. The systematic, brutal attacks that took place in 1991 and 1992 have not left my memory, even if they have left my hon. Friend's. Those attacks would return if we were to cease maintaining the no-fly zones. I say to my hon. Friend that we will stop our responses if the Iraqis stop attacking our planes. Saddam Hussein is trying to kill our pilots, and we are acting in self-defence. At some point, he will have to wake up to the fact that he will have to comply with the will of the international community and the resolutions to which he has signed up. At that point, the violence can end.

Mr. Robert Key: I thank the Secretary of State for his full answer. Nothing that the Government or the Opposition say or do should hinder the operational effectiveness of our forces or the forces of our allies. That is why we understand the need for caution in pressing Defence Ministers to reveal the rules of engagement and to tell the House whether they have been varied. Parliament has learned in recent years that in military conflicts it is crucial that all allied forces operate with the same rules of engagement. We have heard and seen much of the Secretary of State on radio and television in the past 24 hours, but he should not be dragged to Parliament to account for his actions by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). We would like to hear more of him on the issue and have the opportunity to question him on it.
We agree that it is necessary to police the no-fly zones to help to protect the Shia Muslims and the Kurds from the excesses of Saddam Hussein. Will the Secretary of State tell us why there appears to be a divergence between United States objectives and those of the United

Kingdom? The United States has made it clear that its policy objective is the removal of Saddam Hussein from office; that is also the Conservative position. Today, we have heard nothing about the long-term objectives of the UK Government. The Prime Minister has spoken of putting Saddam Hussein back in his cage. Does the Secretary of State understand that, if he is to retain public support, as well as the support of the whole House, he must develop, and share with us, a long-term strategy on Iraq?
The Opposition agree with the United States Government position, reported yesterday to the US Congress, that the objective should be to help Iraq resume its rightful place in the region, which can be achieved only under new Iraqi leadership. We know that Saddam Hussein is able to sell as much oil as he wants for food and medicine for his people, but that he will not do so. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government
will not allow him to get round the sanctions and use that oil money to build up a weapons arsenal."—[Official Report, 3 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1074.]
Therefore, why does it appear that we are allowing the illicit export of oil from Iraq to Turkey through Kurdish areas, by road, with thousands of tankers trading in cash which appears to be helping to keep the Saddam regime afloat?
Today, the Secretary of State tells us that our aircrew are under renewed threat and are acting in self-defence. Will he assure the House that the forces that we are deploying over Iraq have enough equipment, ground support and medical services to sustain those brave men?
I have explained why we are cautious in pressing Ministers to share rules of military engagement with the House; that was the subject of the private notice question tabled by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. However, the House should be aware that, this morning, US sources have told me that the US rules of engagement are a matter of public record, and that, in the United States on 1 March, Defence Secretary Cohen announced a variation to those rules. If that is true, will the Secretary of State also publish the rules of engagement that our forces are following, which presumably are identical to those followed by America? If the rules of engagement for the United States and UK forces are the same at the tactical level, surely the time has come for our strategic objectives to be the same.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what I thought, at the beginning, was a supportive statement. I appreciate that the Government have received support from the Opposition on both the purpose and the method of operating the no-fly zones.
The hon. Gentleman contends that I have been dragged before Parliament and presses me to announce our rules of engagement, but I remind him that our rules of engagement abide strictly by international law. Rules of engagement are a routine and detailed operational matter; they are not normally discussed or published, so as to ensure the safety of our personnel. It has, therefore, been the practice of successive Governments never to notify Parliament of changes in the rules of engagement; nor is there a requirement to do so.
I do not stand at the Dispatch Box to explain a different situation. There has been a sustained and increased level of attacks on coalition aircraft. The attempts by Saddam


Hussein to kill our aircrew continue and increase all the time; indeed, this morning, there were incursions into the southern no-fly zone and attacks on coalition aircraft. That situation continues. However, I refuse to give information of an operational nature that will allow the Iraqis better to target the aeroplanes of the Royal Air Force that are flying at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether there is a divergence on policy between the United States and Britain. There is not. I have regular communications with my opposite number, Defence Secretary Cohen, and we are absolutely together in our views on this mission, and on the rules of engagement that apply to both countries.
The hon. Gentleman asks why the Government do not state our long-term strategy for Iraq. The House has been informed as to that matter on many occasions. Although the private notice question is on the rules of engagement in the no-fly zones, let me point out that, ultimately, our objective is to ensure that Saddam is not a threat to his neighbours. Since the end of Desert Fox, he has threatened Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; and, only a few weeks ago, he sent Tariq Aziz to threaten the Turkish Government. We intend to ensure that he is not a danger to his own people as well.
As for illicit sanctions breaking, ships of the Royal Navy and the Armilla patrol are engaged in that operation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will, whenever we can, tighten the screws of the sanctions on that country.
I will agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: Saddam is responsible for the miseries of the Iraqi people. He has in warehouses $275 million-worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute. Only 15 per cent. of the medical equipment purchased by the Iraqi Government has been distributed and only 2 to 3 per cent. has been installed. Although wheat and barley production has increased by 15 per cent. this year, Saddam Hussein has not given those crops to his people, but is selling them at cut-rate prices to Syria. Saddam has an obligation to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and he is also responsible for the misery of the Iraqi people.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that—whatever words he may have used—he has, in effect, announced today a state of war against Iraq with the Americans to remove Saddam when there is absolutely no United Nations authority for that action? Is he aware also that we now know that the United States used the United Nations Special Commission to spy in order to identify current targets? Government policy towards Iraq over the years has failed absolutely, but, although the Government have announced a very important change today, Ministers have been reluctant to come to the House and allow us to debate the matter. This is a state of war, and British pilots are at risk because of the decisions taken by the American and British Governments, which, as I have said, have no legal authority.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, regardless of the statements that he makes in the House, the use of depleted-uranium bullets during the war with Iraq and the suffering in that country have engendered a legacy of hatred which will probably last for generations? We need a middle east peace conference that will address a clutch

of issues, including the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq and Cyprus, the Palestinian question and the position of the Kurds. That is the way forward. The Government demand ceasefires whenever wars break out elsewhere in the world, but they have renewed their attacks on Iraq when we should be looking at all the problems of the middle east—including the need to lift sanctions for humanitarian reasons. I beg the Secretary of State to ask his colleagues to allow the House to debate those issues in a manner that will allow more exchanges than are possible in the context of a private notice question.

Mr. Robertson: I refute absolutely my right hon. Friend's allegation that this amounts to a declaration of war. If Saddam Hussein stops threatening the lives of our aircrew, we will not need to respond—it is as simple as that. Saddam Hussein's forces are attacking our aircrew and our planes. They are seeking to kill pilots of the Royal Air Force and we are taking defensive action.
It is absurd for my right hon. Friend to suggest that this is in some way a declaration of war or that we are acting without United Nations authority. He will remember the attacks on the Kurds in the north—I saw him on the television standing in solidarity with some of those Kurds a few weeks ago—and what happened to the Marsh Arabs in the south of Iraq. The no-fly zones were put in place in response to those attacks, and they rightly remain today because the threat has not gone away.
Our pilots are at risk. They have a humanitarian mission: they willingly fly every day because they believe in international law and order. They should be applauded and congratulated on their efforts. When I visited them last month, I recognised their bravery and the risks that they are taking. I must remind my right hon. Friend—in all comradeliness—that, if we had listened to his advice in 1990, Kuwait would still be occupied by Saddam Hussein and the gross violations of human rights that we witnessed then would be continuing.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I do not doubt the need to maintain the no-fly zones or the bravery of Royal Air Force aircrew and the risks that they run. However, does the Secretary of State understand that those of us who supported the use of force as a last resort to compel Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions none the less feel unable to give the Secretary of State the blank cheque to which he alluded today? Is there not a substantial distinction to be drawn between a defensive response to the threat of attack and, as is now apparently taking place, the systematic destruction of Iraq's air defence system? Is that not an escalation that goes far beyond the mere tailoring of the rules of engagement, as the Secretary of State has suggested?

Mr. Robertson: No, it does not. I say bluntly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that what we are doing is proportionate. It uses precision-guided weapons; it is directed only at military targets. There is no escalation that is not mirrored by the increased threat to coalition aircrew. The decision is taken with a heavy heart, and with regret. I take no pleasure in ordering young men—those on the ground who support them suffer the deprivation of being away from home, too—into battle in these circumstances, but we do it because the threat


is increasing. Daily incursions have increased dramatically since the end of Operation Desert Fox. What we do is robust, but we are conscious at every stage of the fact that, under international law, it must be proportionate. There is no blank cheque. If attacks stop on planes that are policing the no-fly zones and protecting helpless people who have already been attacked, the responses will stop exactly at that point.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comments today have the overwhelming support not only of the parliamentary Labour party but of the British people? Is he further aware that some of us greet with nausea the comments of apologists for Saddam Hussein, who seem to take no account whatever of the fact that all these actions derive from the annexation of Kuwait and the looting and murder of Kuwaiti people? All these actions arise from this man wanting to dominate the middle east with non-conventional poisonous weapons through persistent violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions, which, despite the inaccurate and illiterate niggling which has occurred, fully authorise the action that is being taken today—and previously.
There would be no need for military action or a no-fly zone if Saddam Hussein did not massacre his people, as he has again recently. The Government should continue with the action that they have bravely undertaken in collaboration with the United States Government. It can end only when Saddam Hussein either at long last complies with the Security Council resolutions or is turned out.

Mr. Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support, which has been consistent down the years, as has his support of the Iraqi people and his opposition to the regime that has visited so much misery on them and their neighbours. He is right to point to the annexation of Kuwait and the renewed threat in the past two months to the borders of Kuwait.
I keep hoping—perhaps it is a vain and naive hope—to hear some of my right hon. and hon. Friends plead with the Iraqis to release the prisoners of war, the disappeared, who were taken from Kuwait following the Gulf war and have not been heard of since. I am glad that the UN Security Council has set up three panels—one on disarmament, the second on the humanitarian needs of Iraq and the third on the Kuwaiti disappeared. It would be nice to hear some of those who express an interest in this subject, and who may even have back channels with the Iraqis, saying a little more about that. To reinforce my right hon. Friend's point about the regime, what kind of leader watches his children die and his hospitals operate without drugs, but keeps $275 million-worth of medicines and medical supplies locked up in a warehouse?

Mr. Christopher Gill: The Secretary of State has talked about the risks that RAF pilots are taking, and he has rightly drawn attention to the dedicated efforts that the RAF makes in the area. However, will he answer the specific question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked what the status of

RAF pilots would be if they were downed on Iraqi territory? Would they be prisoners of war, or would they come into another category?

Mr. Robertson: I answered the question, and I will answer it again. The obligations of the Geneva conventions apply to Iraq, whether there is a declaration of war or not. The mission of those pilots is humanitarian in its purpose. Iraq would have to, and would be, obliged to adhere to the Geneva conventions.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: A few moments ago, the Secretary of State spoke of his ordering British pilots into battle against Iraq. A few minutes before that, he said that there was no declaration of war against Iraq. Will he make absolutely clear the state of relations between Britain and Iraq? What are the long-term objectives of the bombing missions and the deployment of aircrew over Iraq? At what point would he be prepared to send in ground troops? Many people wish to know—not as apologists for Saddam Hussein, but as supporters of the Iraqi people—the exact long-term objectives of Britain and the United States in the region.

Mr. Robertson: The objectives are absolutely clear: to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of the resolutions that were adopted by the United Nations after the Gulf war, to which Saddam Hussein subscribed, and to ensure that Saddam does not represent a continuing threat to his neighbours in the region and, through that, to international stability.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware how sickening it is for the vast majority of us in the House to listen literally day by day to those who echo the views of the murderous regime in Baghdad, who use every opportunity in the House of Commons—an opportunity that people in Iraq do not have—to express the views of Saddam Hussein? As my right hon. Friend said, the people who opposed the liberation of Kuwait nine years ago are the ones who now echo the views regarding the no-fly zones.
Has my right hon. Friend noticed one difference, however, in the contribution from the critics today? Has he noticed that whereas, previously, they said, "All that is happening is due to President Clinton trying to save his job," they do not say that today? No doubt, however, other smears and innuendo will be used to try to prevent the humanitarian work which my right hon. Friend has described, and which is undoubtedly supported by a large majority of people in this country.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. I believe that what we are doing is not only right but supported by the vast majority of people in this country. When, at times, I feel intemperate and feel that this man's threat to the countries of the Gulf that I visited last month should be better appreciated by more people in the House and throughout the world, I reflect on the fact that this is a democratic House—that this is a Parliament in which people are allowed to say what they want, however repugnant it may be, however unfashionable it may be, but at the end of the day the people will decide. In Iraq, no one has any such liberty. Anyone who does not agree with Saddam, even on details, is unlikely to stay alive for long.

Mr. John Cryer: I wonder whether I can press my right hon. Friend on the exact objectives. He said that one of the objectives was to bring Saddam Hussein to the point at which he was no longer a threat to other countries in the region. At what point do we judge that that point has been reached? After all, Saddam Hussein is a butchering psychopath who slaughtered his own people; at what point does he cease to be a threat to the other countries of the region? Does what my right hon. Friend said imply that an objective of policy is to remove Saddam Hussein from office?
I should have thought that most hon. Members would agree that any influx of weapons into that volatile region would not be the best idea. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will tell us why, in those circumstances, Britain recently gifted—not sold—missiles to Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend asks what we mean by "when Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat". The resolutions passed following the Gulf war clearly set out the terms that he was expected to adhere to. The disarmament that is laid out there is the matter that has been the source of so much controversy. UNSCOM was the means by which the United Nations sought to find out what weapons Saddam had, especially weapons of mass destruction, and to destroy them. UNSCOM found out an immense amount and destroyed a lot of the weapons, but the United Nations believes that he still has those capabilities and some of those weapons of war. Compliance is the standard set for Saddam.
It is not part of our policy to remove Saddam Hussein from office. That will be done by the Iraqi people in their good time. What we can do is point out to them through every available channel that he is, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a butcher, and a butchering dictator.
My hon. Friend says that we should not sell weapons, apparently, to the region. However, the Gulf countries are friendly countries, they are allies of ours, and they have every right to self-protection, especially as they live in the close neighbourhood of the Iraqi regime. My hon. Friend mentions a specific gift, which is a technical description, of some precision-guided weapons. Those have been given to Saudi Arabia to replace the JP233, which we previously sold to Saudi Arabia, but is not compliant with the Ottawa convention which we have signed. The weapons are simply a substitute for weapons that that country bought. That seems to be in the interests of Saudi Arabian self-defence and our commitment to abolishing all forms of anti-personnel land mines.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I have no problem condemning Saddam Hussein or associating myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) that Saddam is a "butchering psychopath", nor do I have any difficulty calling for the release of the disappeared, although I do not have any avenue of expression into Iraq, other than views expressed in the House. However, is it not one thing to engage in bombing and economic sanctions, and another to imply that that is problem free and that no moral difficulties attach to it with regard to the condition of the Iraqi people?
The major blame is with Saddam Hussein, and has been since the start of the Iran-Iraq war, but our response to that evil also creates adverse conditions for the Iraqi people. That should be seen by the Government as a problem. They should not treat the matter with glib answers and put all the blame on to Saddam Hussein all the time, as though our response to the situation did not create secondary problems.

Mr. Robertson: I do not know where my hon. Friend is directing his accusation of glib responses. My responses are far from glib. Foreign Office Ministers—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), is present—and we at the Ministry of Defence spend a great deal of time considering precisely the problems that my hon. Friend outlines.
That is why the Government convened a humanitarian conference last year which was directed specifically at examining ways in which we might be able to help the people of Iraq, while making sure that the isolation of the regime continues. That is why this country is the second largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Iraq, and why we sponsored the resolution that doubled the amount of oil that could be sold for food.
That is also why I remind the House and the country that, at a time when Saddam Hussein says that his children are dying because there are no medical supplies, he has $275 million-worth of medicine and drugs locked up, which he will not distribute. He cannot skate away from his responsibilities by saying that sanctions have been imposed, because he will not comply. If he complies with the resolutions and the will of the international community, the sanctions will be removed and the Iraqi people will be allowed to get back to a life of normality. I doubt, however, whether there will be full normality until Saddam has gone.

Trade Sanctions (USA)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the unilateral trade sanctions imposed by the United States Administration against cashmere knitted garments and other products.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The European Union and the United States have been engaged in a long-running dispute in the World Trade Organisation over the EU's banana regime. Following two adverse WTO rulings in 1997, an amended regime was agreed by the EU's Agriculture Council in June 1998.
The United States and other complainants maintain that this regime still does not comply with WTO procedures. In November 1998, the United States announced its intention to retaliate against the EU by imposing 100 per cent. import duties on selected products. The United States sought WTO authorisation for that in January. At the request of the EU, the level of damage that the United States was seeking in retaliation was referred to arbitration, to be decided on 2 March.
On Tuesday this week, the arbitrator, in an initial ruling, said that he needed more information to make a decision, and asked the parties to respond to a series of questions by 15 March. He would then return to the issue and come to a final ruling soon afterwards.
However, the United States yesterday announced that, with immediate effect, the United States customs service would begin "withholding liquidation" on imports of various EU products, including cashmere knitwear. We are firmly of the view that that prejudges the panel ruling and is contrary to the WTO dispute settlement rules.
The United States argues that it will not apply the duties until after the arbitrator has ruled, but the practical effect of the measures is the same as if they applied now, because exporters have to put up a bond to cover possible duties in the future.
I deplore the action which the United States has taken. It is completely unauthorised by any WTO procedures and wholly ignores the arbitrator's appeal for discussions to continue. Even now, it is not too late for the United States to reverse its decision. It should do so, in the interests not only of the EU-US relationship but to safeguard the whole framework of dispute resolution and settlement within the WTO. The United States action is irrational and unacceptable. I have summoned the United States ambassador and will make those points to him later this afternoon. We shall also support an urgent convening of the WTO General Council.
It is particularly regrettable that American action is directed against industries that have absolutely no connection with bananas or the issues in dispute. There can be no justification for inflicting, or seeking to inflict, serious damage on businesses and communities in pursuit of objectives that are utterly unrelated to the activities in which they are engaged. We are very conscious of the effect that even the threat of US action has been having over the past few months, especially in respect of the cashmere industry. This is a seasonal industry and it has

been particularly affected. Cashmere orders are now being placed and dispatched to the United States for the autumn season.
I spoke this morning to George Pedan, chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association, who stressed to me the damaging effect that the proposed US action would have. In the light of yesterday's action by the United States, the Government have decided to establish a scheme to guarantee the bonds in respect of the cashmere industry, and we will discuss with the industry, as a matter of urgency, the details of that scheme.
The United States action is unacceptable. We shall do all that we can to reverse it. I hope that the measures that I have announced today to support the cashmere industry will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the opportunity to come to the House at such short notice, and so quickly, to deal with the damaging situation that the cashmere knitted industry faced last night. The anger and incomprehension felt in the Scottish borders at this completely gratuitous hostile and unilateral act at the hands of a so-called ally were palpable. The concern was that knitwear businesses would be driven to the wall and into financial insolvency if they had to carry financial bonds in addition to the other difficulties that the knitwear industry is suffering.
I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for making it clear that he has engaged, immediately, in talks with the Scottish Cashmere Association and associated bodies to achieve a scheme that will give confidence to the industry. He is absolutely right to say that this is a crucial time of year for securing contracts for cashmere delivery to the United States. It is the worst time of year for the problem to have arisen. If he can secure agreement with the trade representatives and get a scheme in place at the earliest possible opportunity, that will at least give us some short-term respite during which we can sort out this long-term dispute.
I congratulate the Government on what they have done, but I hope that the Secretary of State will redouble his efforts to resolve the fundamental underlying dispute between the EU and the US about bananas quickly, so that we can all put this deeply damaging and unfortunate incident behind us.

Mr. Byers: What can I say? I welcome the positive response from the hon. Gentleman, who modestly did not refer to the fact that, the other evening, he led a delegation to meet me and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade to discuss precisely those matters. There are two issues at stake, the first of which is the steps that we need to take to ensure that certain industries—in this case, the cashmere industry—are not the innocent victims of the action taken by the United States. The measures that we are introducing and the scheme that we propose will achieve that.
There is a more fundamental issue—the dispute resolution mechanism within the World Trade Organisation. We will certainly do all we can to ensure that the United States recognises that it has a responsibility to comply with the procedures, even when it may appear to the United States that those procedures


are not going in its direction. The acid test of any resolution procedure is all parties agreeing to abide by it, in good times as well as bad.

Mr. John Redwood: I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer and I am glad that he can, at last and after so long, see the damage that US action can do to innocent industries in Britain. Will he promise to get the EU to settle this diplomatic trading dispute? He accepted in his statement that the EU has twice broken the rules and twice lost the case in the WTO. Will he promise us that he and Brussels now have a compliant regime? When does he intend to establish that regime to the satisfaction of the WTO?
Why did the Secretary of State or his predecessor not intervene a long time ago to achieve a proper, compliant agreement from Brussels so that we could have avoided this whole sorry mess? How much money will be made available to help the cashmere industry during its time of trouble? Does he now agree that the Government's appalling diplomacy, in Brussels and beyond, has made the banana row so much worse? Does that not show that the Secretary of State has no influence in Brussels, that he has failed to stand up for British industry and that he does not care about British manufacturing? First, he makes it too dear to make things in Britain; then, he fails to keep our markets open for those who are still struggling to succeed.
Will the Secretary of State now stand up for the UK cashmere manufacturers, stand up for the others and do whatever is necessary, through Brussels, to solve this dispute and to impose a compliant regime on Brussels?

Mr. Byers: First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman—it was fully 45 seconds before we got to the Brussels-bashing element of his speech, which is something of a record. Usually, he reaches it far more quickly.
This is a serious issue and it is unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to use it in the way that he has. Whether the regime is compliant is a matter for the dispute resolution procedure to determine, which is exactly what it is in place to do. The regime is being challenged and it is for the dispute resolution procedure to determine that challenge. The matter is for the arbitrator and the panel to determine and they are in place to do precisely that.
We have taken action to ensure that we offer protection to the cashmere industry in these particularly difficult times and we have intervened in Brussels to promote, and to try to achieve, a settlement on this issue. I regret that that has not been possible, but we will ensure, in the days and weeks ahead, that we continue to do all we can to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the cashmere industry and the other sectors that are also affected by the retaliation.

Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this US action is in pursuit of the singular interests of the multinational banana companies controlled by the United States which dominate production in central, north and south America? Does he also agree that, if its agenda of removing the European Union regime on quotas for Caribbean bananas is successful, it will result in the total destruction of the

Caribbean banana industry? Given the siren calls that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), does my right hon. Friend further accept that the European Union—particularly the United Kingdom—has a traditional and current responsibility to ensure that the interests of the Caribbean banana producers are protected under whatever regime is eventually negotiated?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure that many people will be asking why the United States, where no jobs are at stake because of the banana regime, is putting WTO procedures at risk over this issue. Its motives should be questioned and scrutinised in some detail. This is a crucial issue, and we shall do all that we can. There is a responsibility to countries in the Caribbean that depend on the regime that the EU has put in place. We do not intend to stand to one side and watch people in those countries becoming innocent victims; nor do we intend to stand to one side and watch what is happening to the cashmere industry.

Mr. Michael Moore: The Secretary of State will be aware that there have been thousands of job losses in the borders in the past couple of years. This deplorable unilateral action by the American Government threatens hundreds more jobs. As the Secretary of State has acknowledged, this action could not come at a worse time, because companies in the United States are at this very moment encouraging people to buy Scottish cashmere to put on their shelves for next season.
I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the bond scheme, but will he tell us how quickly that scheme will be worked out? This morning, I spoke to a local manufacturer, who said that he is suddenly faced with a bill of £50,000. He must find that money this week to get his goods in America delivered on time for his customer. This is a serious matter, and I hope that the Government will ensure that their welcome initiative is speedily implemented.

Mr. Byers: I agree that time is of the essence and that we have to get the scheme in place as a matter of urgency. That is why I have already had a brief discussion with the chairman of the Scottish Cashmere Association about how the scheme should be formulated. I note the hon. Gentleman's points about the particular effect that this action will have on Scotland. I regret that no members of the Scottish National party are present in the House to address this matter of great concern to Scotland. This is a key issue for Scotland, and we shall do all we can to protect the cashmere industry in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Ms Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern in the Caribbean region, in the Caribbean community in this country and among friends of the Caribbean about the issue underlying this dispute, which is access to European markets for Caribbean bananas. As hon. Members have acknowledged, it is important that this dispute is resolved speedily, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure the House that there will not be a speedy resolution at the expense of hundreds of thousands


of people in the eastern Caribbean, whose countries face economic collapse. A speedy resolution at their expense would mean that the bully-boy tactics of the US had won.

Mr. Byers: This is a novel occasion, because I am pleased to agree with my hon. Friend on the points that she made. We believe that the revised regime that the European Union has put in place meets the WTO's requirements and protects the countries and communities to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State will be aware that this coming Tuesday is Commonwealth day. At least a quarter of the Commonwealth countries are in the Caribbean, and the economies of many of them largely depend on the banana industry. When the Secretary of State sees the American ambassador this afternoon, will he explain to him that many people in this country think that it is crazy that the United States should seek to undermine the economies of the Caribbean? It will pay the penalty through drug trafficking and money laundering, because not one job in the United States will be affected. This action is short-sighted, stupid and crazy.

Mr. Byers: I shall be pleased to pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to the American ambassador—and I am grateful for the fact that, when I speak to the ambassador this afternoon, I shall be able to speak on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House in adopting the robust approach that I intend to adopt.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, the style with which he has said it and the action that he has taken. Does he accept, however, that there is a certain ironic contrast between the subject matter of his statement and that of the earlier statement? This is a very poor moment for the United States to declare war on British biscuits and pullovers. Does he further accept that this constitutes a dangerous lurch towards the crudest kind of protectionism, at a time when world markets are extremely fragile? Will he ensure that representations are made at the highest levels with the aim of reversing this crazy action, and will he assure the House that he will not lend his name or his hand to any equally crude reprisals that may occur in the European Union?

Mr. Byers: The European Union will obviously need to consider its response to the measures announced by the United States yesterday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be retrograde for us to impose sanctions as a response. The fact is that—particularly as the world economy is slowing—we need free trade and commerce. Protectionism anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. We have a great tradition as a trading nation, and we need to ensure, through our efforts in the World Trade Organisation, that we can maintain that position.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I associate myself entirely with what has been said by hon. Members whose constituencies will be deeply affected by the cuts. I think that all who, like me, were born in Scotland are immensely proud of the cashmere industry, and proud to wear cashmere.

I commend the negotiations conducted by Sir Leon Brittan, who has been zigzagging across the world in his attempts to prevent a trade war. It is in that connection that I want to question the Secretary of State, for a broader issue is at stake—an issue that goes beyond bananas and cashmere. The United States appears, by stealth, to be leaving behind its policy of free trade, and turning increasingly to protectionism. We have seen that especially in the context of bananas: it is dollar bananas versus Commonwealth bananas, Chiquita versus Geest. The economies of the Windward islands and other Commonwealth areas—and, indeed, those of European areas, such as the Canary islands—are being forgotten.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can help us in another respect. Can he prevent a trade war from arising over Hushkit aircraft? That will be the next development. We are talking about noisy reconditioned aircraft that should be prevented from flying into the United Kingdom from 2002—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is a long way from bananas.

Miss McIntosh: May I leave the Secretary of State with a final thought? If we do not beat the United States on bananas, we shall have to take hormone-produced beef, which consumers in this country simply do not want.

Mr. Byers: A range of issues are relevant to the difficulties that we will face if this issue escalates into a wider trade dispute. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), it is important for us not to allow that to happen. Sanity must return to the situation. The steps taken by the United States yesterday were really for internal political consumption, rather than implying that the US was a player in a world organisation such as the WTO. That makes these developments particularly regrettable.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend remind the American ambassador that there is a specific interest that the United States should take fully into account in deciding what to do? I refer to the whole question of regional political instability, which the US will provoke in an area that is very near its frontiers. He might well also remind the Americans of their policy on and concerns about Cuba, and the fact that they had to invade Grenada for reasons—in their interpretation—of instability. If they carry on with their policy, they might provoke such ferocity and instability that they find themselves having to intervene again. They are on a very silly course.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes some important points. I will ensure that the strength of feeling that he has expressed is relayed to the American ambassador this afternoon.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Any breach of free trade with the world's largest economy must be deplored. Has the Secretary of State considered the fact that, if this country had joined the North American Free Trade Agreement, there would have been mechanisms through which to resolve the dispute some time ago?

Mr. Byers: I have to admit that I have been concentrating more on trying to resolve the current issue and on the pressing problems that are affecting the cashmere industry, but I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I might give it some consideration, although perhaps not for too long.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's response to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the plight of Caribbean banana producers. Can he be a bit more specific about what can be done to help banana producers in the eastern Caribbean, who face an immediate loss of orders, serious unemployment problems and the resulting collapse and implosion of their economies? I understand the point about arbitration, but any delay will be disastrous for the many small, hard-working farmers in those islands.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises significant points. The Government are already taking steps. The banana recovery plan is in place and offering help. There are opportunities to diversify from the banana industry, so that alternative forms of employment are provided for those communities. Therefore, we do not intend to walk away from our responsibilities to those countries. We will do all that we can to discharge our responsibilities to them.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am a great supporter of the United States, but even I think that it has gone off beam with its decision. I welcome the support that the Government are giving to the cashmere industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an equal commitment and support to Caribbean banana producers because, if they lose out, their economies will be totally devastated and we will have to give them an enormous amount of aid. Trade is far better than aid.
I am a bit perplexed because I thought that the Prime Minister was a great pal of the President of the United States. I cannot understand why he has not picked up the telephone, called Bill and asked him what support he can give to the cashmere industry in Scotland. After all, the Prime Minister was the human defence shield for the President when he had difficulties. Now that the cashmere industry in our country has difficulties, is it not about time that the Prime Minister started calling in a few favours? When will he pick up the telephone and say, "Dear Bill, give us your support"?

Mr. Byers: I am not party to the conversations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may or may not have had with President Clinton, but I do know that right is on our side. It should be a question not of calling in political favours, but of the United States abiding by agreed international procedures. That is the issue at stake. As a result of the action that it announced yesterday, it is failing to do that. That is unacceptable. It needs to comply with those procedures. That is what we need to ensure happens. We need the weight of international opinion to be brought to bear on the United States so that it recognises that, yesterday, it made a bad mistake. There is time to get it right and to change its approach.

Business of the House

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office be good enough to give us the business of the House for next week?

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 8 MARcH—Consideration of a Lords Message which may be received to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill.
As this is International Women's Day, there will be a debate entitled "Delivering for Women" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Subject to the progress of negotiations, it is proposed that we should debate the Implementation Bodies (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 9 MARCH—My right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
WEDNESDAY 10 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Continuation of the Budget debate.
THURSDAY 11 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 12 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
TUESDAY 16 MARCH—Remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill.
Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
WEDNESDAY 17 MARCH—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the 2nd report from the Environmental Audit Committee on the greening Government initiative, followed by a debate on the 6th report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Tax Credits Bill.
THURSDAY 18 MARCH—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates, excess votes and defence votes A.
FRIDAY 19 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House will wish to know that, on Tuesday 9 March, there will be a debate on end of life vehicles in European Standing Committee C.
On Wednesday 10 March, there will be a debate on transport infrastructure charging in European Standing Committee A.
On Wednesday 17 March, there will be a debate on the welfare of laying hens in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 9 March:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 11034/97, Treatment of End of Life Vehicles; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-iv, HC 34-vi and HC 34-ix and HC 34-xi (1998–99). Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-vi (1997–98)
Wednesday 10 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 10778/98, Transport Infrastructure Charging. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxxvii (1997–98).
Wednesday 17 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—European Union document: 6985/98, Welfare of Laying Hens. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-vi (1998/99). Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxviii (1997‒98).]

Sir Patrick Cormack: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first business questions. I thank him for giving next week's business and the provisional business for the week after. I thank him, and through him the Leader of the House, for conceding that it would have been totally inappropriate to have the remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill just a couple of days after the conclusion of the Committee stage. We are grateful to the Government for that concession.
It is obviously appropriate that, on international women's day, there should be a debate on women, but I am not sure that "Delivering for Women" is the most felicitous title.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are still anxious to have a debate on the White Paper on the House of Lords. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues have rightly insisted that the debate on the Bill should be tightly confined. We need to debate the Government's proposals for the future of the House of Lords. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be a debate on that soon?
May we also have a debate in the near future on the euro and the Government's changeover plan? It appears from certain items in the newspapers that the Prime Minister has his own hidden agenda on that. Could we have a debate, and could it be introduced by the Prime Minister?
May we have clarification next week from the hon. Gentleman or the Leader of the House on what is envisaged as the precise role for the Committee of the Regions? As the hon. Gentleman will know, at least one Select Committee Chairman—a Labour Member—has indicated that Select Committees have responsibility for certain subjects that would presumably devolve to such a Committee.
Could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of when we can expect a debate on the Lawrence inquiry? The Home Secretary indicated that the Leader of the House had promised such a debate.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is great concern about the future of the Good Friday agreement. May we have an assurance that, before the House rises for the Easter recess—in other words, before the first anniversary—there will be an opportunity for a full debate on that agreement?
The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that the Prime Minister has recently made statements casting certain doubt on the precise nature of the ministerial code. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement next week on the ministerial code? In the debate this week on Sierra Leone, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), offered an interpretation of the requirement of Ministers to give accurate and truthful information to Parliament which seems to be totally different from a reasonable interpretation. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office agrees that we need clarification of the matter, and that the only person who can give it is the Prime Minister.
Very soon, the House will also have to debate two other subjects. The first is genetically modified food, about which there is concern across the country. The other is the millennium bug; we have not had our quarterly statement on the millennium bug. Is that because something has got into the works? Will we have it next week?

Mr. Paul Tyler: It has been genetically modified.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Perhaps, but we should have had it on 2 March. May we be assured that it will be given at least next week?

Mr. Tipping: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comment.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points, the first of which was on the House of Lords. I am delighted that we have been able to establish a good relationship in dealing with the matter, and that we have proceeded on it, so far, by agreement. I hope that we shall be able to continue doing so. I am also very conscious of the desire for a debate on the White Paper. As he will know, discussions are taking place on the matter through the usual channels, and I hope that we will soon be able to achieve something.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the national changeover plan and the Prime Minister's intentions on that. The Prime Minister made his position perfectly clear, only last week, in a statement to the Commons. The hon. Gentleman will know that, next Tuesday, we shall start a four-day debate on the Budget. I do not think that it would test hon. Members' ingenuity too much to arrange for the issue to be raised in that debate.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of regionalisation. One matter that draws hon. Members into the Chamber at business questions is the desire to raise issues affecting their locality and region. It is important that we should have opportunities to discuss regional matters, and the Modernisation Committee has considered the issue. I am making arrangements for the memorandum submitted to the Modernisation Committee to be placed in the Library, so that all hon. Members will be able to read the proposals. I suppose that we shall have to make haste rather slowly on the matter.
I agree entirely on the need for a debate on the Lawrence inquiry. The Home Secretary has made his intention on the matter very clear—he would like a debate soon. Although it is important that we should have an


opportunity to study the inquiry before we have that debate, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that there will be such a debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarification of the ministerial code. It would be in everyone's interests if we all knew where we stood on the matter, and the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is considering the issue. I am certain that the Government will take notice of the Committee's report.
The hon. Gentleman asked about GM food, which is a very lively issue. Agriculture Question Time will be held next Thursday, when I suspect that the issue will arise.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the millennium bug. I promise him that the quarterly statement will arrive in the not-too-distant future, computers permitting.

Mr. Tyler: I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to his new position, and I welcome his positive remarks on the Lawrence inquiry report, which Liberal Democrat Members also are anxious urgently to debate.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to respond also to the question on the Good Friday agreement? There is widespread concern in the House that we should have an opportunity to consider the situation.
Has the hon. Gentleman had any indication of when the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expects to make a statement on the progress—or non-progress—of the current talks on the future of the common agricultural policy? This is an intensely important issue for the industry, which is already in a very delicate state. The continued uncertainty is damaging its confidence, even without further delay and indecision. Even if no final deal is reached, I hope that the Minister will come to the House to report on the lack of progress.
I should like a statement next week on the management of the passage through the House of the Greater London Authority Bill. A serious situation is arising, with the Government rewriting huge sections of the Bill in Committee without following the normal conventions of ensuring that all members of the Committee—Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers—have an opportunity to assess the importance of the changes and to write amendments. The problem is so great that I have had a memorandum produced, which I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman. One example arose a few days ago, when the Government substantially rewrote a clause on road user charging. They tabled 11 pages of replacement schedules on 2 March, in the expectation that they could be considered and appropriate amendments could be tabled in just 48 hours or so. That is intolerable, showing that the Government are not managing the Bill with the care and attention that it deserves. It is an arrogant insult to the House not to pay more attention to the needs of Back Benchers and Opposition parties.

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful again for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the Lawrence inquiry. I am confident that there will be one in the not-too-distant future. The hon. Gentleman asked for a discussion on the Good Friday agreement. I am sorry that I neglected to mention it when responding to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). There is a case for taking stock a year on of what has been

achieved—there have been achievements—and looking at the difficulties. I shall bear in mind what both hon. Gentlemen have said.
Like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I come from a rural area. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has written to every farmer asking for views on the way forward on CAP reform. We have talked about it for a long time. People know that change is inevitable. It is particularly important now, given the state of the industry, that we should be able to give reassurance and have a debate with producers so that they know the way forward. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend hears the hon. Gentleman's points clearly.
I was aware of difficulties with the Greater London Authority Bill; I am conscious of the fact that there have been many amendments. It is a complex Bill. We may have to have further discussions to see whether we can help the Committee with its important work.

Mr. George Galloway: There has been a development in the past few hours at the Security Council in New York. It came too late to influence the private notice question that we had earlier, but it demands a statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would pass that message on. China, in the chair of the Security Council, has declared that the no-fly zones about which the House heard earlier are illegal, and are not endorsed by any United Nations Security Council resolution. That requires a judicial review, because it calls into question the expenditure by the Ministry of Defence in support of the no-fly zones, and the status of pilots who might be involved in an accident or might be shot down while implementing a policy that the Security Council chair has decreed is illegal. It also calls into question the moral and ethical basis for the policy that has resulted in more bombs being dropped since the end of Operation Desert Fox than were dropped during it—a policy that the United Nations Security Council, in whose name it is supposedly being conducted, has declared illegal.

Mr. Tipping: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was here earlier for the private notice question, but some of the points that he made—particularly about the safety of our airmen—were covered fairly extensively at that time. Iraq has been discussed in one way or another on every day this week in the House, and I suspect that hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend, will use opportunities to raise the issue further. I will draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but I believe that the will of the House is to safeguard the interest of innocent parties in Iraq. That must remain our course, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to pursue it with vigour.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister make time for a statement on the EU inspection of abattoirs which, as he will know, is a prerequisite to the lifting of the beef ban? Is he aware that the Prime Minister stated categorically last week:
We have of course invited the inspectors"?—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 386.]


It now transpires that the Government had not, and that an urgent invitation was sent out the following day. The House needs to know whether the Prime Minister was merely reckless in his statement to the House, or whether he set out to mislead.

Mr. Tipping: We all share the view that it is important to get the beef ban lifted as quickly as possible, and that abattoirs are inspected. Our current intention is to have the inspection around the end of March. An invitation has been issued—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The matter was raised with the Prime Minister. The important thing is to ensure that we pass the inspection, and that we ensure that beef is once again exported from this country.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When can we have a statement about vibration white finger payments and chronic bronchitis and emphysema payments to miners, retired miners and—in some cases—widows? We know that the Government have about £2 billion ring-fenced for the payments, but the truth is that we are beset by as many as 220 lawyers who have their fingers in the pie and are holding up payments which are badly needed by, in some cases, very aged people. Will he ensure that the appropriate statement is made shortly, so that these important compensation payments can be made and so that a minimal amount of money goes to the lawyers? Rumour has it that they are concentrating on getting as much as 10 to 15 per cent. commission payments from the fund. It is high time that the Government told the lawyers to get on with the job, get it settled and get the payments made.

Mr. Tipping: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign that he has initiated and followed for a decade to ensure that former miners get compensation for vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We are now nearly there, and a third of a million pounds was agreed in compensation to a small group of miners only last week in respect of VWF. That is the tip of the iceberg. I hear what my hon. Friend says about solicitors and their agents. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry who, as he knows, has taken a personal interest in the matter. He is working vigorously to ensure that money gets into the pockets of disabled mineworkers by the summer.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the Greater London Authority Bill, may I make it clear that the problem is not so much with amendments, as with the reams of new clauses that effectively involve the rewriting of the Bill? The Committee has been good-natured, but, frankly, that good nature is being curdled by the fact that the Government give no reasons why that procedure has to be followed. The habit of having milestones in the Bill, especially when the amendments or new clauses crop up just before a milestone is reached, does not, in my view, assist the structure of discussion.

Mr. Tipping: I have heard clearly what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the matter. I gave an undertaking

to investigate it. I will ensure that my colleagues are aware of the strength of feeling in the Committee and try to ensure that progress towards establishing a Greater London authority runs more smoothly than at present.

Mr. David Drew: Earlier today, I attended the launch of Ecotricity, a new joint venture company set up by the Renewable Energy Company, based in my constituency, and Thames Water. The launch was addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry, and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), was present. Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of an early debate on the importance of renewable energy and on the way in which it can contribute to the reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions, in line with our commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010?

Mr. Tipping: I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in this matter. If he looks carefully at the business statement, he will see that, on Wednesday 17 March, there is a debate concerning the Environmental Audit Committee, and it may be possible to raise the subject under that heading. There are a number of arrangements, such as Adjournment debates, whereby he could raise the matter.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Minister be more precise about the timing of the millennium compliance quarterly report? Will it be on Monday and, if not, why not? Nothing could be more urgent, as the day of reckoning for the Government will by then be fewer than 300 days away.
May we have a debate on open government, by which I mean honest government, and, in particular, on the way in which the Prime Minister uses words loosely? Before the general election, he said that there would be no increase in taxes, but it has now been revealed that there will be £40 billion of tax increases.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said, the Prime Minister said that of course the Government had sent a request for inspectors to the European Union, but it turns out that he was wrong in saying that. Most seriously of all, at the first opportunity that the Government had to put the record straight, when a question was tabled for answer the following Monday, they gave a holding answer. Quite contrary to the spirit of open government, holding answers are being used to cover up the Government's dirty work.

Mr. Tipping: We have been waiting for the millennium for a millennium. There are 300 days to go, as the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot promise a statement on Monday, but, if he is patient and waits a few more days, he will get his statement.
There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss taxation in the Budget debate.
Let me say plainly to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members that the Prime Minister did not mislead the House. Discussions had been going on for several weeks with European Union partners about inspectors visiting at the end of March. The fax inviting them was not a new development, but merely confirmed the date.
The important thing is to ensure that our abattoirs pass the test and that British beef can again be exported throughout the world.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend make time for an early debate on the health service? St. David's day on Monday saw the start of the west London NHS Direct scheme, which serves my constituents. That scheme, together with the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of some £780,000 to modernise the accident and emergency unit at Northwick Park hospital, represents probably the best three weeks for Harrow's health service in any of the past 20 years, and is in stark contrast to the 18 months before the general election, when my constituents had to suffer the loss of Mount Vernon A and E unit, closed by the Conservatives, and of Edgware general A and E unit, also closed—appropriately, on 1 April—by the Conservatives.

Mr. Tipping: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter, even though I know that he has worked hard to bring better health and accident care resources to his area. He mentioned Northwick Park hospital, and I am delighted that substantial new money will be made available to that hospital and to A and E departments all over the country to help them to provide that valuable service better. I am also pleased that NHS Direct is proving to be such a successful service. My hon. Friend may know, but other hon. Members may not, that we have asked Sheffield university to examine the successes and to evaluate NHS Direct. I look forward to seeing the report. The provisional results show that 97 per cent. of callers are satisfied with the results of the new service.

Mr. Robert Walter: I am somewhat disappointed by the response that the Minister gave to the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on the response that the Prime Minister gave me at Question Time last week. It is a fact that Mr. Horst Reichenbach, the Director-General of DG XXIV, the consumer affairs directorate in Brussels, produced the letter from the chief veterinary officer that was received on Thursday in Brussels and said that it was the first invitation that had been sent. There is, therefore, some confusion between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Downing street and the Minister about the facts. Will the Prime Minister come to the House and explain to whom he issued the invitation?

Mr. Tipping: There is no confusion on my part. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, after years of bungling by his colleagues in the Conservative party, and their inaction and inability to discuss the issue with partners in Europe, we are now on the verge of having the ban lifted. Farmers in my area and his will welcome the positive action taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues to make that happen.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on the important subject of primary education, so that we can applaud the remarkable achievement by 29 schools in Newport in obtaining the quality mark for basic schools, which represents by far the largest group

of schools in any area in England and Wales, and 10 per cent. of the marks awarded throughout the two countries? Is it not important that, in that debate, we emphasise that the award does not recognise a few high-flyers in the school, but means that every pupil in the school is given basic skills in literacy and numeracy? May we have that debate soon so that other areas, less favoured than Newport, can emulate the splendid achievements of Newport council?

Mr. Tipping: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has reminded the House that children are our future and that we need to invest in them, because that is in all our interests. I am pleased that so much has been achieved in Newport, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that he wants. The Prime Minister, as we speak, is visiting primary schools in Ealing—he may have opportunities to visit Wales at some time—to announce an extra £150 million to ensure the achievement of our pledge that all five, six and seven-year-olds should be taught in classes under 30. That is a substantial extra sum. We are on target to achieve our plans and another manifesto milestone has been reached, not only in Newport, but across the country.

Mr. Eric Forth: May I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for an urgent debate on the so-called national changeover plan in relation to the euro? I ask that because, as the matter is, mercifully, to be decided by the people of this country rather than by the Government, and as there is every indication that the people are likely to say no, we need to know more about the Government's plans in the event that we do not join the euro. It is grossly irresponsible for any Government who even pretend that the matter is still at issue not to prepare the country for the important eventuality—I hope it is a certainty—that we do not join the euro.

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point: the choice will be made by the people of this country through a referendum. I welcome that and I am sure that he welcomes that. Let us ensure that we—

Mr. John Bercow: Get on with it.

Mr. Tipping: Let us ensure that we do get on with it and that, if the time comes for us to join the euro, we are ready for it. Today, the first meeting takes place of the cross-party group to consider those arrangements. I am sad that there is still an empty space on that group for a Conservative Member.

Mr. Andrew Love: Has my hon. Friend read early-day motion 365, which deals with the licensing of medicines for children?
[That this House notes that 25 per cent. of all hospital treatments given to children are either unlicensed for this purpose or are not used in accordance with the instructions on the label; expresses concern that some of those treatments have resulted in death or injury to some of those children; recalls the comments made by the Health Committee in its report, The Specific Health Needs of Children and Young People, 10th February 1997, that 'the current situation in regard to the testing and licensing of medicines for use by children is unacceptable'; further notes that European Union


guidance on this issue came into force in September 1997; but expresses concern that the Medicines Control Agency does not hold information on those products which are being developed in accordance with this guidance, and that the MCA does not keep a record of those companies which may be complying with the guidance; notes with interest that from April 1999 in the United States, pharmaceutical companies will be compelled to provide information about the effects of their drugs on children if such a use is likely; and urges the Government to take steps to strengthen the regulatory framework in the UK, and establish a satisfactory system for testing and licensing treatments for use on children.]
Recent research shows that 25 per cent. of treatments are either unlicensed for the purpose or not carried out according to the instructions on the label. Considerable concern has arisen about the possibility of accidents, and a number of cases of injury and death have been reported. In a recent report of the Health Committee, the situation was described as "unacceptable". The issue is extremely important and should be discussed by the House. Will my hon. Friend find time for that discussion in the near future?

Mr. Tipping: I had read the early-day motion, but have now had another opportunity to look at it. I regret that it will not be possible to arrange for the debate requested by my hon. Friend in the foreseeable future, but his early-day motion and the points that he has just made help to raise the profile of that important issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. A number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. If questions and answers are a little shorter, hopefully all those hon. Members who want to speak will do so.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 369.
[That this House supports Age Concern and the Royal College of Nursing in urging the Secretary of State for Health to issue urgent advice to health authorities and local authorities on their respective responsibilities following the judgement in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan which asserted that both general and specialist nursing care remain the sole responsibility of health authorities; and further urges the issuing of advice to those individuals who are currently in hospital assessed as needing nursing home care, or who are currently paying for nursing in nursing homes and who may now believe as a result of the judgement that nursing in nursing homes is free.]
It is gaining support from all sides of the House; it calls for the Government to issue urgent guidance to health authorities and local authorities in the wake of the Coughlan case, in which it was found that the national health service cannot shirk its responsibilities to pay for nursing care wherever it is provided. May we have an early debate, in Government time, to consider that matter in the context of the report of the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly, so that we can end the uncertainty of many thousands of people who face the prospect of selling their homes to pay for their care, when we now know that they might not have to do so?

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he spoke in the debate on the statement about the royal

commission's report earlier this week. We need a debate and an exchange of ideas over a relatively short time, so that we can make progress on the report of the royal commission. I am aware of the court case to which he refers; he will know that my colleagues in the Department of Health are considering the matter, and I hope that there will soon be progress.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: When my hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) that he would secure a comment from the Attorney-General about the legality of the Iraq situation, he could not have known that the chair of the Security Council—China—has said that the Council believes the action is illegal. That creates a new situation. In light of that, could we have a response from the Attorney-General on Monday?

Mr. Tipping: I have nothing to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). However, I will ensure that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are also drawn to the attention of the Attorney-General.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the hon. Gentleman afford us a debate, or at least a statement, so that the Government may clarify their position in light of the interview given by the Foreign Office Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), to Le Monde, in which he stated that the Prime Minister had already made up his mind to abolish the pound? Could that debate be sufficiently elastic to allow us to consider the employment consequences of that move?
You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Andy Masters in West Bromwich lost his job as a consequence of having displayed a poster issued by The Sun—the same poster that appears on my gatepost. That debate could give us an opportunity to consider our own arrangements in the House. The poster gives a telephone number-0660 100721—that members of the public can ring to register their support for retaining the pound. I dialled that telephone number from the House and found that the House telephone system is configured to prevent hon. Members from making such a call.

Mr. Tipping: Here is another hon. Member who heeds what The Sun says. Perhaps The Sun has some knowledge of the hon. Member, as it is not prepared to listen to what he says. I am aware of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). He speaks from his position as a Back Bencher who represents the constituency of Rotherham.

Mr. George Stevenson: I refer my hon. Friend to early-day motion 371.
[That this House, observing the current unacceptable deterioration of human rights in China and Tibet, calls on the Government to support a resolution on China at the forthcoming 55th United Nations Commission for Human Rights in Geneva.]
It expresses concern about the serious deterioration in the human rights situation in China and Tibet, and refers to the forthcoming 55th session of the United Nations


Commission on Human Rights. In view of the fact that the Commission will meet in the next few weeks and given that the United States Senate voted recently 96:0 to support a resolution at the Commission meeting condemning those abuses of human rights, will my hon. Friend find time for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House in the next week identifying whether the United Kingdom Government support such a resolution and outlining their policy in this area?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has enough perception to note that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), is sitting on the Front Bench. Discussions are under way with our European partners on this matter, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will liaise with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) in this regard.

Mr. Graham Brady: Can an early opportunity be found for the Prime Minister to come to the House to clear up the confusion caused by his remarks on various occasions? I refer to the Prime Minister's speech in Bristol a month ago in which he said that it was time to repeal some European directives that imposed costs on business. However, he now says that he has none in mind. I refer also to the Prime Minister's recent speech in which he said that Britain should follow United States labour practices. Those statements do not make any sense when the Government are driving the Employment Relations Bill through the House, which will pile new costs on business.
The director general of the Engineering Employers Federation has commented astutely that the Prime Minister appears to be saying one thing and doing another. Many of us believe that it is not the first time that that has happened. Given the confusion that the Prime Minister is causing in the business community, among trade unionists and for hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that he should be given the chance to come to this place and explain himself.

Mr. Tipping: The Prime Minister comes to the House every week to take questions. He believes in a strong and vigorous business sector. Debate on the Budget will begin next week and continue for four days, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will try to catch the Speaker's eye then.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend make time for a debate in the near future on Britain's relations with Turkey so that we may discuss the problems of human rights abuses, Turkish incursion into Iraq and the contracts apparently being considered—which have been supported by the Department of Trade and Industry—that involve British construction companies in the damming of the River Tigris? That project would cause considerable problems for people living in the Kurdish part of eastern Turkey.

Mr. Tipping: The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is by my side and he has heard the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not too long to wait until Foreign Office questions, when he may have an opportunity to raise this matter again.

Mr. Bercow: Further to the pertinent inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West

(Mr. Swayne), will the hon. Gentleman reconsider and provide for an early statement on the role and responsibilities of Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers, about which confusion is prevalent within Government ranks? The hon. Gentleman told the House a moment ago that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) had spoken in his capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the crucial fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham is not just any old Parliamentary Private Secretary: he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Can the House be told whether the hon. Member for Rotherham was blurting out the Government's true intentions, and therefore will soon be promoted; or he was misrepresenting the Government's position, in which case he will presumably be either sacked or otherwise disciplined?

Mr. Tipping: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman describe my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham as "not any old Member of Parliament".

Mr. Bercow: PPS.

Mr. Tipping: He is not any old PPS, for that matter. He is a man of many talents, some of them eccentric. I have made the position absolutely clear: my hon. Friend speaks for himself as the Member of Parliament for Rotherham.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I draw the attention of the House to the disturbing report that appears in today's edition of The Express newspaper about the background to the massacre in Uganda. New information has come to light since the Foreign Secretary made his statement on Tuesday. The report reveals that a Briton was abducted in the same area six months ago and has not been seen since. It suggests that the Foreign Office told the man's brother and family to say nothing about the incident, and points up the sharp contrast between the Foreign Office's failure to change its advice to travel companies and the actions of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which issued a very tough warning as a result of that incident. This is a very disturbing matter and I believe that time should be found to enable the Foreign Secretary to return to the House and explain why our Foreign Office did nothing, whereas the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a dire warning about what might happen to tourists in that area.

Mr. Tipping: It is important that hon. Members do not believe everything they read in the newspapers—even if it is The Express. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), has written to the newspaper pointing out that its story is wrong in many respects. I shall give two examples of its inaccuracy. The unfortunate person in this very difficult situation was in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Foreign Office gave very clear advice not to travel to that area. I also understand that there has been close contact between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the gentleman's family.

Mr. Christopher Gill: In company with other hon. Members, I was scheduled this afternoon to


meet the Minister of Agriculture to draw attention to the impending crisis in the small abattoir sector as a result of the colossal increase in charges that it will face from 1 April. I would like to think that the Leader of the House will recognise that that subject merits debate in the House so that I and other hon. Members who represent constituencies with small abattoirs can make the case for an urgent review of the current proposals. Typical of these cases is the abattoir in my constituency at Bishop's Castle, which will face an almost doubling of its meat inspection charges from 1 April. For every slaughterman, it will have one vet or meat inspector. Those small abattoirs are generally located in rural areas, and I think the House should have an opportunity to debate the effect on the rural economy, on employment in those areas, on animal welfare and on the niche marketing of specialist high-quality products if the abattoirs are forced to close. That is a likely prospect if the charges are introduced on 1 April. I seek the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he will grant that urgent debate.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman has made several important points about the needs of rural communities and the countryside—many of which I agree with. He had the opportunity to raise such issues with the Prime Minister only yesterday. He raised the issue of beef on the bone, but could have extended his question to abattoirs. I am sorry that he is not meeting the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, but I shall ensure that his comments are drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention. It will not be possible to have a statement on the issue, although there

will be Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food questions next Thursday, when I expect that the issue may arise.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Last Wednesday, 2,000 road hauliers gave up a whole day's work to descend on London to stress to the Government that their vindictive policy will cause the loss of up to 50,000 jobs—more than the west midlands would lose if Longbridge were to close. The road hauliers were struck by the lamentable lack of interest among Labour Members of Parliament and the Government. They were astonished the following day, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised the issue in Department of Trade and Industry questions, that the Government did not appear to understand that 95 per cent. of British freight goes by road, and that, by penalising this strategic industry, every business in the country is made less competitive. Could we have an emergency debate on this vital strategic industry?

Mr. Tipping: I am aware of the problem; hon. Members on both sides of the House take an interest in the matter. Indeed, I have visited road hauliers in my constituency. There is an issue. Excise duties are high in this country, but certain concessions from which our road hauliers benefit are not available in other European countries.

Mr. Paterson: Not enough.

Mr. Tipping: It may not be enough, but difficult judgments must be made. I imagine that there will be an opportunity, not for a statement and debate on this issue, but to raise it in debates on the Budget, which start on Tuesday.

Orders of the Day — House of Lords Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 March].

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — New Clause 9

SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BOARD

'(1) The Secretary of State shall ask the Senior Salaries Review Board:

(a) to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords; and
(b) to detail the costs of their recommendations.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the final report of the Senior Salaries Review Board before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [3 March], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the Committee that, with this, we are discussing amendment No. 12, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert
'the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords and'.

Mr. Eric Forth: To continue—Members of stage 1 of the upper House to play a full and active part in it. Underlying that matter is the effectiveness of the interim upper House, which, in turn, depends very much on its composition and the contribution that its Members will make.
So far, we have rather taken for granted the unique contribution of hereditary peers, which stems not only from their independence of mind and expertise, but from the fact that, crucially in the context of the new clause, they have made their contribution without being paid. That raises the crucial issue of whether the interim House, as the Government envisage it, can survive and be as effective without the hereditary element, and without the payment of its Members. Will life peers not only continue to make their variable contributions, but fill the gap left by the disappearance of hereditary peers, without us seriously considering pay and allowances—hence the new clause's importance?
I do not want to prejudge the matter. I have made my position very clear, for what that is worth. Ultimately—I hope sooner rather than later—I believe that we shall have a properly elected, accountable, small upper Chamber, which has equivalent powers to this place and whose Members are paid and supported appropriately by staff. It is much more difficult to envisage the operation of the interim House, composed as it will be mainly of life peers, with, perhaps, additional life peers appointed in some way about which we are not yet entirely clear, and to decide

whether we think that they will be prepared and able to make an effective contribution, so that the interim House is effective as an upper Chamber, if they are not paid.
We cannot proceed any further without providing a mechanism, as the new clause and the amendment do, to deal urgently with the matter; otherwise, we risk expecting an upper House of radically changed composition to play the role that it has up to now without any alteration in the support that we give to its Members.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are dealing with an historical hangover, because it was assumed that hereditary peers would have wealth, and that there is absolutely no reason for a similar assumption concerning life peers?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I am sure that some of the hereditary peers that he and I know and love very greatly would say that the golden era in which they could be assumed to have wealth has, regrettably, long since gone. In fact, I would argue that, in some ways, the hereditary element is representative of society, because, regrettably, many hereditary peers are almost as impecunious as I am. Therefore, they could be said to represent a surprisingly large spectrum of society.

Mr. Letwin: rose
—

Mr. Forth: Perhaps my hon. Friend is going to tell the Committee how impecunious he is.

Mr. Letwin: I shall resist that temptation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem resides in the fact that many life peers are more impecunious than he is because they have no visible means of support?

Mr. Forth: Yes. That takes us to the kernel of the matter. We cannot wait until stage 2, the final outcome, the culmination of the process, before we take a serious look at whether an interim upper House can be sustainable and credible if it is based on the acts of charity of its Members, on which we have relied for too long.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is attempting to develop the argument that most hereditary peers are able to attend because they have some income. Given that only about 20 per cent. of hereditary peers attend, is there a relationship between the ones who attend and their wealth, compared with the ones who do not attend and their wealth? That would support his notion that attendance is related to one's other financial means.

Mr. Forth: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady's figures are correct, but I will not fall out with her over that. I do not think that such on analysis has been made. I accept the relevance of her question. However, I believe that I am approaching the issue from a different direction.
We cannot assume that hereditary peers are all wealthy in their own right; that era is long gone. We cannot assume that hereditary peers make no contribution to the upper House, because they make a distinct and valuable


contribution. We cannot assume that life peers make an overwhelmingly positive contribution either, because it is a sad fact that very many life peers make little or no contribution to the upper House.
This is where I differ from Labour Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) does not fall into this category, but some of her hon. Friends make the mistake of assuming that "hereditary" means useless and bad and that "life" means valuable and good, and that therefore we shall have a splendid upper House if we do away with the hereditaries.
I challenge all those assumptions. Given the changes that will now take place—because the Government are willing them upon us—and given that, willy-nilly, the interim Chamber will consist overwhelmingly of life peers, we must seriously consider whether unpaid life peers will be able to sustain a credible upper House that will make a valuable contribution to the legislative process of holding the Government to account. That is the important question at issue as we debate the new clause.
As ever, my hon. Friends have done Parliament a valuable service in bringing this matter to our attention and giving us the opportunity to set up a mechanism to conduct a review of salaries to run in parallel with the work of the royal commission. At least that provides the opportunity to have properly remunerated Members of the upper House.

Mr. Michael Fallon: My right hon. Friend referred to the Members of the interim House being properly remunerated. That is the exact terminology that the Government use. In chapter 8 of their White Paper "Modernising Parliament—Reforming the House of Lords", they refer to the "proper salaries" and research costs that a fully elected House would command, and indeed deserve. Why should something that is proper for an elected House be improper for an interim House?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I said a moment ago—I may be coloured by my own prejudice—that in my view we should have, as quickly as possible, an elected, accountable Chamber, but a very small one. I have suggested that it should have 87 Members. I have said that because there are 87 European parliamentary constituencies, so we would have a ready-made electoral map for that small upper Chamber. In those circumstances, because of the nature of that Chamber, I should have thought that the Members could expect a rather substantial salary to reflect the role that they would play. The same analysis cannot apply to the interim House, which would still have several hundred Members.
I support the new clause because I believe that we need an opportunity to consider the payment of the Members of the interim House, bearing in mind its size, composition and so on. Of course, we would then have to look beyond that at how the final upper House—in my view, elected and accountable—would operate, in view of the number of its Members.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The number 87, which my right hon. Friend has conjured up, strikes me as a useful number. He will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans),

who opened the debate yesterday, speak of the conditions in which the present Members were accommodated—seven to a room. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a number as 87 would fit very conveniently into that temple to the part-time Parliament which is being erected across the road from this place?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into speculating where my upper House of 87 Members would be accommodated. I can tell from the look on your face, Mr. Lord, that if I were to start to reply to him in even the briefest terms you would not allow me to do so, so I shall not, tempted as I am.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will not tempt me further to explore the shape, size and accommodation of my preferred upper Chamber, although I hope that the day will come when I may explore those options fully.

Mr. Heald: I certainly would not trespass on that dangerous ground.
In reviewing the salaries and allowances, should not the Senior Salaries Review Body carefully consider what the functions of the upper House are and might be? In those circumstances, does my right hon. Friend feel that a wide-ranging review by the SSRB is needed, focusing on the allowance available for research and secretarial assistance? I suggest that, if Members of the upper House are to have enhanced functions, they will need considerably more back-up than they have had.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend asks a vital question. Interestingly, it runs in parallel with the question that we, the House, shall have to consider concerning the pay and allowances paid to Members of the Scottish Parliament when that Parliament comes into being. After all, their function and role will have altered, will it not?
We must confront the same question in relation to developments elsewhere in our constitutional arrangements. When we have a Scottish Parliament, with MSPs—as I believe that they will be called—fulfilling their functions, the relationship between such functions and pay will need to be explored.

Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem to which he has so forcefully drawn the Committee's attention is greater than he has been describing if, as a result of yesterday's debates and the lamentable lack of any concession by the Government to our amendments, the interim Chamber lasts a very long time indeed?

Mr. Forth: I hope that that reinforces my argument. In the context of our amendments, if the Government had told us that they could guarantee that the interim arrangements would last only two or three years, we might then have conceded that it would not be necessary or proper to consider pay and so on. However, my hon. Friend must be right in saying that, given that we have no such guarantee, and that we cannot be certain how long the interim arrangement will last, we must have a mechanism to consider the issue of functions as related to pay.
All this argument now comes together in the new clause that my hon. Frienes have offered to the House. I hope that we shall receive a very positive response from the Minister about it because I fear that, if we do not, we shall be left even more uncertain, confused and unhappy than we were when we considered the matter yesterday.

Dr. George Turner: There are considerable dangers in the use of simile or metaphor, but my views on the new clause are best communicated by some form of simile.
Our current position is like that of a family with two cars, one of which has long been neglected, has been due for replacement for several decades, has not been maintained and is, in the family's general opinion, clapped-out or in a bad state of repair. Some members of the family argue that it is a vintage car, which should be protected, but the majority view is that it should be scrapped, and that that decision should be taken before the family argue about what should replace it. Some of the family may argue that the second car may not be appropriate to the modern age, and others may argue about the model of car that should be chosen.
New clause 9 is rather like asking the family, once they have decided to scrap the car, to have a discussion about whether—at such a late stage, the day before it is scrapped—it should be taken in for an assessment and overhaul, and perhaps a respray. I believe that most family members would accept that the new car would have to be appropriately maintained and that it should probably be a new model. There may even be an argument about what type of car it should be.
Whether or not we accept the need to discuss those issues, the relevant decision should be taken once we know what the new model of car is and, indeed, whether the family are intending to have a new car; after all, some of the family may have argued that, in the modern age, they should not buy one.
That simile illustrates our current position. Sensibly, Conservative Members are asking that we ensure that the new model of car is appropriate to its new function. Perhaps we should be arguing about why we need the second car, what it should do, how big it should be and when it should be used. When we have determined that, we can discuss the maintenance schedule, how much we invest in it and what colour the seats should be. All those questions are appropriate at the right time, but now, at the death-bed of the House of Lords as we have known it, is not the time to discuss how we should improve it and maintain it, or to determine—

Mr. Forth: To follow the hon. Gentleman's rather ghastly analogy, what we are discussing is whether we should put any petrol in the car.

Dr. Turner: I accept that on the way to the scrap yard is not the time to fill the tank with petrol.
Of course there is a serious point. When we debate a new form for the other place, we should make sure that it is appropriately equipped to do the job. We need to know whether its Members will be part-time or full-time, whether they will be seconded from industry for fixed periods to do a technical job, or whether they will be elected and will serve full-time, doing a different kind of job.

Dr. Liam Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that—using his analogy of scrapping the current model—what is being created by the Bill is an entirely new model? The interim House may not be a temporary measure; it may be a long-term measure. Therefore it makes perfect sense to consider terms and conditions and pay as part of the new package that the Government will introduce as a result of the Bill.

Dr. Turner: I admitted at the outset that there were limitations to the use of simile and metaphor, but it has some merits. I accept that the Opposition fear that what is seen as a temporary situation may be longer lasting. However, the new clause looks as though it is designed for the long term. By the time the work load of the interim House has been properly examined and reported, and the recommendations implemented, many of my hon. Friends and I will want an entirely new House of Lords brought into existence by legislation.
If the new clause is not mischievous, it is badly timed. We should indeed debate those topics, but at a later date.

Mr. Swayne: It could, perhaps, be argued that there is some measure of profligacy on the Opposition's part. The taxpayer has undoubtedly been enjoying a bargain. If one measures productivity in terms of 2,000 amendments accepted per year, the rate currently paid out for the job is remarkably small. There is a strong argument that the taxpayer should continue to enjoy such a bargain, but that takes no account of the fact that the situation will have changed radically as a consequence of the Bill.
That is where I depart from the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He is wrong in his simile about the car being scrapped. We are speaking of a different vehicle. The reduction in the hereditaries will remove a significant number of the working peers. That work load will devolve on to the remaining peers.

Caroline Flint: Has the hon. Gentleman's party been asked to act as the trade union for the life peers? Have the life peers asked you to propose terms and conditions for them in the interim period?

Mr. Swayne: I do not know whether you, Mr. Lord, have been asked any such question, but I certainly have not.
The issue is the work load that will devolve on to the working peers. Unless support is provided for them, the work simply will not be done. There will be an insufficient number of peers to attend to it.
Only last night the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department refused to give any indication of the period that the Government had in mind for the duration of the transitional arrangements. That makes it clear that it is entirely proper to consider the issues arising from the proposed changes.
For the benefit of the Minister, I reiterate my suggestion that, when we consider how the even more productive peers are to be accommodated, we should remember that an almost purpose-built building is being erected, which surely could not be given up for the accommodation of members of a House who recently voted to give themselves a half-day on Thursday and an extra week's holiday in February.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I shall be brief. I find the debate a little odd. I shall not be drawn into the analogy of cars, because everyone knows that all the best family saloons are made in my constituency by Vauxhall. I have no aspirations to go to the other place, so I shall not be drawn down that road.
The Opposition frequently preach to us about their supposed business skills, yet the new clause negates all the principles that would usually be used to examine a business case for determining the pay and conditions of a group of workers. The Opposition keep telling us that we do not yet know what those people will do, how long they will do it and how many of them there will be, so the Senior Salaries Review Body would be faced with an impossible task if we followed the logic of the Opposition case. On that simple basis, I hope that the Committee will resist the motion.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. We know that some time during this Parliament—if the Government have their way, at the end of this parliamentary Session—the House of Lords will lose a large percentage of its active membership. We also know that the House of Lords will continue to have to perform the functions that it currently performs. In other words, it will have to scrutinise legislation, and its Select Committees will have to examine deregulation, European Communities legislation and all the other things that they do at present.
We know that, in fulfilling those functions, the House of Lords will be deprived of the services of a great many Members who regularly attend, man those Committees and carry out that scrutiny. We know that there is no proposal in the Bill to change the functions of the House of Lords.
I find the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) an endearing Member, but what he said was arrant nonsense. He had the chance to try to push things on yesterday, but he did not take that chance by voting for the appropriate amendment. We know that the Government have no idea how long the House of Lords will continue to sit in its present form, but deprived of the membership of some of its most active Members. It might be for one year or two years. Even on the Government's admissions from the Dispatch Box, through the mouths of several Ministers in this debate, we know that we are speaking of a new form of second Chamber coming into existence after the next general election, at the earliest.
For a minimum of two years, but very likely for far longer than that—even if the Government win the election—

Mr. Forth: Oh!

Sir Patrick Cormack: —even if the Government win the election with a commanding majority—

Mr. Forth: Oh!

Sir Patrick Cormack: —both of which propositions I find highly improbable, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would agree. Even if that happened, we are probably talking, on the Government's own admissions at the

Dispatch Box, of a minimum period of about four years from now before any replacement second Chamber could be functioning effectively.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that he has no interest to declare, as what he describes is, effectively, a new deal for hereditary peers? We have often been told how many of these hereditary peers live in Conservative Members' constituencies. I dare say that many of the backwoodsmen live, literally, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). How many live in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency of South Staffordshire?

Sir Patrick Cormack: None. Not only is that irrelevant, but the hon. Gentleman has failed to listen to and understand what we have been saying.
We accept that the Government will get their way on the matter of the hereditary peers. That is not in dispute. We have accepted that time and again, although we do not necessarily think that the Government were right to make that a priority of their legislative programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said only yesterday that we accept that the Government were elected with a large majority and that that was part of their manifesto, although I doubt whether many of those who voted for new Labour did so for that reason. Nevertheless, the Government are entitled to claim a mandate. That is not at issue. At the end of this Session, the Bill is likely to become an Act of Parliament and, as a result, there will be no hereditary peers.
Not only is no Weatherill amendment incorporated in the Bill, but, when the House was offered the opportunity to vote for a similar amendment a couple of weeks ago, it rejected it. Therefore, we are talking of a House that will have a much smaller number of active peers than it has at the moment.

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman would make a passionate shop steward, but my experience over many years of trade unionism is that a group of people who want a pay rise put in for it first, before any other representation is made. I am not sure whether any such claim has been or is to be made. What purpose would there be in setting up any such review until we know the future make-up of the second Chamber? For example, if it is made up of largely indirectly elected Members from the regions—it may well be, but it may not be—how shall we to know what salaries such people are already receiving? It makes no sense at this stage to look at their salaries.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I almost despair. We know the composition of the House of Lords for the foreseeable future. We also know what its work load will be. That is not in dispute between the two Front Benches or between anyone who has examined the matter. We know that there will be a House of Lords which, for the foreseeable future, will consist of those who are presently life peers, those who are presently there by virtue of the fact that they are among the 26 bishops of the established Church,


and those who are there because they are Law Lords. The Government have said that. But the interim may be a long time.

Dr. George Turner: rose—

Mr. Heald: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Patrick Cormack: In a minute. I am trying to conduct a teach-in on the new House of Lords. Let my hon. Friend contain his patience for half a second.
The House of Lords will consist of those three elements—the life peers, the bishops and the Law Lords. We also know that there may not be any of the 91 hereditary peers, because that is not in the Bill, and the attempt to put them there has been emphatically rejected by the House. We also know that, with the increase in business emanating from Europe, the work load will increase. Therefore, we know that a significant burden will be placed on the shoulders of a relatively few life peers. It is important to recognise that.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was wrong when she intervened, because 40 per cent. of those who currently attend the House of Lords are hereditary peers, and 10 of those who are members of the 20-strong Committee—the most important Committee of all—examining European legislation, are hereditary Peers. They will go. According to the Bill, they will not be represented by any of their number.

Dr. Starkey: rose—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Let me make a final point and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—chivalry demands that—and then to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
We have the work load, but we will not have the hereditary peers. All we are saying in this modest new clause is that the functions and composition of the House of Lords should be referred to the Senior Salaries Review Body so that it can assess whether it is desirable, sensible, prudent—whatever one likes to call it—that those sustaining the work load for that indefinite period should be adequately recompensed for so doing.

Mr. Heald: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister said last week that it would be wrong to abolish duty-free goods until a permanent successor regime was put in place? Yet he is prepared to go ahead without any permanent successor regime for the House of Lords. Is that not one of the difficulties that we face? Therefore, would it not be right for the Senior Salaries Review Body to look at not just the temporary arrangement, but a range of options for the future?

Sir Patrick Cormack: The real difficulty that we face, as my hon. Friend knows, is that we have a Prime Minister who has perfected the art of dining à la carte, and who, therefore, picks and chooses what he wants, and who has no consistency, theme, rhythm or purpose behind his constitutional endeavours. The Prime Minister is perfectly happy to get up and talk about duty-free goods

and to enunciate a principle which, if applied to this Bill, would have led to the acceptance of not only this new clause but most of the amendments hitherto debated.

Dr. Starkey: I simply wanted to correct a mathematical point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. When I intervened, I said that only 20 per cent. of hereditary peers turn up and vote. That is entirely consistent with his alternative mathematical expression. That 20 per cent. may constitute 40 per cent. of the active peers. I simply wanted to make it clear that my point was correct and not altered by the hon. Gentleman's point.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If, inadvertently, I made any allegation of innumeracy against the hon. Lady, I unreservedly withdraw it. But the fact remains that 40 per cent. of those who regularly attend, who bear the burden and heat of the day, are hereditary peers. That is why, if the hon. Member for North Norfolk, who is becoming agitated—a state to which he is thoroughly accustomed—had used the analogy of a bus with half its passengers missing rather than a car, it would have been a much more telling analogy.

Dr. George Turner: The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) sits on the Conservative Benches and I do not want to be associated with the Opposition. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormeck) seems entirely to ignore the point that change will begat change. It is said that the graveyard is full of the bones of indispensable men. Those who are doing the work now in the House of Lords will have volunteers to replace them. They are not indispensable, as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. If not enough are forthcoming and willing to work, and if we are to go for the extended period, which the hon. Gentleman envisages—which I do not—there is the option of new blood. Shall we not be able to debate many such matters when the Bill returns from the other place?

3 pm

Sir Patrick Cormack: I remind the hon. Gentleman that all we are saying is that the Senior Salaries Review Body should have the opportunity to keep these matters under review. He is a man with a literary turn of mind, so perhaps he recalls that lovely—

Dr. Turner: I am an engineer.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman appears to have a literary turn of mind. I was giving him a reputation for couth and culture, which I would have thought that he would be delighted to revel in. Perhaps he knows that lovely poem by John Betjeman about the death of the golf club secretary. The final lines are:
It's strange that those we miss the most
Are those we take for granted.
We take those peers, and the work that they do, for granted. When they have gone, the work will remain and somebody will have to do it.
One does not have to be a mathematician of the genius of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West to be able to accept that more work will fall on fewer shoulders. Therefore, those people will not be able to attend their offices, the law courts and the other places where they are


otherwise gainfully employed, in some cases, as often as they do at the moment. How often have we heard it said that the very removal of those peers—"Off with their heads"—will make the House of Lords better? If the Government want the new House of Lords to be better than the one it replaces, surely it is incumbent on them to take every logical and prudent step to ensure that those who bear that burden will be enabled to do so.

Mr. Winnick: The Opposition amendments that we debated yesterday emphasised the need to make sure that the Government produce the second stage as quickly as possible, but the hon. Gentleman is asking for salaries, and the rest of it, for the interim, which is almost an incentive for that interim to remain permanent. He is contradicting what he said yesterday.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On the contrary, Mr. Lord. How good it is to have someone of your name in the Chair when we are discussing these matters. If anyone is being inconsistent and contradictory, it is the hon. Gentleman. Yesterday, we said that we were deeply unhappy with the way in which the Government were handling this whole issue and that it would be sensible to put a terminal date on the existence of the so-called interim Chamber. I remind the House that, as I said yesterday, at no stage does the Bill refer to the interim Chamber.
The Government were supported by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for North-West Norfolk-1 am grateful for the correction of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, and I of course apologise to him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior)—who voted against those amendments, which were eliminated. The Government strenuously resisted any attempt to put a terminal date in the Bill, so—

Mr. Winnick: That is correct.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful for the gracious affirmation of the hon. Gentleman in that regard; I heard every word that he uttered. All we are saying is that there must be proper provision to ensure that those who have to do the work are enabled to do it.
Among the life peers, on whom that work will fall, there may be some wealthy men and women, but an awful lot are not wealthy. Many extremely hard-working Labour peers will not be able to devote the extra time necessary. A number of them are friends of mine. I chair a large all-party Committee of both Houses of which a number of those peers and peeresses are members and I know very well that they would not be able to do that extra work without recompense and compensation for it. That is all we are saying.

Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that making a proposition without specifying the cost, so that people are aware of it, is not good politics in this House? If the new clause is successful and the issue goes to the Senior Salaries Review Body, will the Conservative party submit evidence to that body and argue for a bridging of the gap in financial support between this House and the other place? Yesterday, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) implied that

that would be the case. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Conservative party argues that case, the cost would be £200 million a year? Is that the Conservative party's priority for any additional expenditure?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's main question. We would give evidence to that body and the evidence would be based on a careful assessment of what was needed. We do not suggest in the new clause that Members of the other place should immediately be given parliamentary salaries equivalent to those received by Members of this House, who have constituents and other responsibilities. We are suggesting that a number of life peers, many of them Labour peers, would have to do more work although they have other jobs to do and would not—

Mr. Rammell: Uncosted.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, the salaries are uncosted, which is why they should be put to a review body. That is a simple point.
We are not saying that those people should receive X thousand pounds a year. All we are saying is that the review body should consider what they are doing, and what it is costing them, and decide whether it would be appropriate for them to receive more in secretarial and other allowances, although it would not necessarily be appropriate for them to do so.

Mr. Rammell: I think that we are making progress. The Conservative party submission to the Senior Salaries Review Body would not argue for parity with this House in terms of financial support. What figure would the Conservative party put in its submission? The hon. Gentleman clearly wants the new clause to be accepted and wants the issue to go to the Senior Salaries Review Body. What detailed thought has the Conservative party given to the submission that it would make?

Sir Patrick Cormack: The matter would be given to the review body. The hon. Gentleman should understand that we are not advocating any specific sum of money. The review body should be given the job and we hope that everybody—including Labour Members with friends in the other place—will give evidence.
Some of those peers spend a prodigious amount of time scrutinising legislation and in Select Committees. Some can afford to give that time and some cannot. There are those who have received peerages, from the Labour party and from my party, who have nominally been Members of the other House for a considerable time—in some cases, a number of years—and have yet to make a maiden speech. I can think of two former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, who were ennobled during the past five or six years, who have yet to make a maiden speech.
I am not suggesting that those people's honours are not fitting recognition of the work that they have done for this House and for the country, but they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, active peers. I can think of at least four Labour peers who fall into roughly the same category. I am not casting aspersions at them either, but I want to show that there is a finite body of men and women who have a valuable job to do. There is no point in saying that they can be augmented; of course they can. New peers


can be appointed, but the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who is a reasonable man, will accept that we cannot create experience overnight.
If the Government's objective is to be fulfilled and the successor House of Lords is to be at least as effective as the present House, it is crucial that those who work there should be able to work there. That may mean, in some cases, their receiving better recompense. All we are saying

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Should it be performance related?

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that it should be performance related, I would have no qualms about that. What Members of the House of Lords receive now is performance related, because they receive an attendance allowance.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): When they turn up.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Deputy Chief Whip, who has obviously been pregnant with speech for hours and is desperate to intervene, says that they receive the allowance if they turn up. The Senior Salaries Review Body would be quite at liberty to say that any award that it recommended depended not only on turning up and signing a register, but on proper participation. The hon. Gentleman, as Deputy Chief Whip, knows that one or two people in this place merely turn up. He also knows that he sometimes offers them inducements not to turn up. The Deputy Chief Whip, as Deputy Patronage Secretary, is in no position to lecture me or any of his colleagues on that subject.
The Senior Salaries Review Body would be able to adjudicate on all those issues and particulars. This is a modest new clause.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I think that I have almost got to the bottom of this statistical problem. It is clear from the figures that hereditary peers contribute half the total activity. In the 1996–97 Session, 182 hereditary peers and 186 life peers attended more than half the sitting days. That is rather more than the 40 per cent. you were suggesting, and strengthens the point you were making about having to do something about the remainder.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I was not making any suggestions.

Sir Patrick Cormack: No, Mr. Lord, indeed you were not, but I was and I am grateful for the added weight that my hon. Friend's sage intervention gives to the argument that I have been trying to advance.
The issue is simple: do we want the new Chamber—the existing Chamber deprived of the services of the hereditaries—to be an effective, functioning Chamber? If so, surely it is common sense to allow the body that we have already established to look at the rewards for public service to include in its remit the service rendered by those who will sit in the other place? I rest my case.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I intended to intervene briefly. Indeed, I had not originally intended to

speak to this new clause, but it raises some important points that we would be wise to address at this stage of the Bill rather than to defer them. We are moving to some different form of second Chamber, which will have different functions and probably far fewer people to discharge them. On that basis alone, it is apparent that the cut-price second Chamber that we have had for a long time, whereby a large number of people give their services voluntarily, will not be feasible for the future.
Listening to the debate on this issue yesterday and today, it struck me forcefully that many Labour Members have not focused their minds on this aspect. They seem to assume that, if we wave our magic wand, the second Chamber will be transformed and we will continue as before. Their contributions to the debate have reinforced my anxiety about stage 2, because they are quite incapable even of looking beyond stage 1. They continually repeat the mantra "get rid of hereditary peers" without any thought for the consequences, one of which will be financial.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something rather sinister in increasing the work load of each individual peer without providing an adequate research allowance for the detailed back-up that they will need to do their job property? That may be because this arrogant Government do not want people saying, "We don't agree with you, and these are the reasons why."

Mr. Grieve: One has only to examine the contents of the White Paper, which contains hidden suggestions that the future role of the House of Lords may be purely consultative because it will have no teeth, to realise that the Government's agenda gives rise to serious concern. [Interruption.]

Mr. Tyrie: The Minister is nodding his head in agreement.

Mr. Grieve: I shall give way to the Minister, so he can explain himself.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I was interested in the language of the debate, and the remark about hidden suggestions in the White Paper. They are either in the White Paper or they are hidden from the White Paper.

Mr. Grieve: White Papers always make fascinating reading. I enjoy reading them, but we must look between the lines. The drift of the Government's message was entertaining. In the White Paper, the Government said that they would make no recommendations to the commission about what they wanted, but, if one read about what might come out of the commission or what issues might be addressed, one immediately began to discover the Government's agenda. It is not just this White Paper: every Government document published for consultation purposes contains the same nuances, which one can quickly pick up.
I was fascinated to see in the White Paper the suggestion that, in future, there should be no blocking mechanism, even for one Session, that would allow the second Chamber to block legislation from this House, and


that the other place should be merely a consultative Chamber. It is extraordinary that that suggestion was included and that it came from a Government who want to extend democracy and extend and improve scrutiny of legislation.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister's assertion that there are no hidden suggestions in the White Paper is contradicted by the fact that, although the foreword says that the Government will move to long-term reform, paragraph 11 on page 29 tells us that they will do so only if there is consensus?

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Doubt about whether stage 2 will ever happen is a subject that has exercised us greatly during the debate. That is why the new clause and the amendment are desirable. We need pretty quickly to focus our minds on the matter of what facilities the other place, even in the interim, will require to discharge its functions properly.
We complain that we have inadequate facilities in this House—we complain that our secretaries are 300 yd from where we work and there are often complaints about resources available to Members. Compared with the resources available to Members of the other place, we bask in the lap of luxury at the taxpayer's expense. Those facilities are necessary so that we can discharge our functions.
I take the point that Members of the other place, not having constituents, do not have the same remit or the same responsibilities that we have. Nevertheless, they require support services, which they do not receive at present because it is, in effect, an amateur second Chamber. People contribute their expertise on a voluntary basis. It is my view that, even when the hereditary peers go, there will be a profound change in the ethos of the upper House and in the way in which it operates. Whether for the better or for the worse, the prevailing ethos in the upper House is that which has been created by the generations of hereditary peers who have attended. I picked that up from talking to life peers, who reinforced my view.
Leaving aside the fact that it is only the hereditary peers who are going, the upper Chamber will change considerably. We shall have to decide whether the life peers who remain will require a better form of remuneration and support. That will be one of the essential building blocks, and we shall have to see how that works when we consider stage 2. The Government say that we cannot divorce stage 1 from stage 2 and that we must view them together, albeit that stage 1 must take place separately to clear away the logjam. The promise is, however, that stage 2 will follow.
I shall be reassured that stage 2 will really take place when, even at this stage, we start to consider some of the issues that will be involved in that stage and can also be legitimately considered now. One of those issues must be the way in which Members of the upper House are remunerated. For that reason alone, I consider the new clause entirely innocuous. It does not interfere with the Government's main programme of getting rid of hereditary peers; it is sensible, for the Senior Salaries Review Body should have an opportunity to consider the matter; and, as a result, we shall be far better informed.
I dare say that, when it reports in December, the Appointments Commission may wish to consider this among other issues. However, it will help the House of Commons to have the independent view of the review body, which will constitute compelling evidence. I am worried about what happens once we have dealt with the principles involved in stage 2. It is apparent again and again that the Government are not very interested in allowing the House, or any other forum, to consider these difficult issues.
I am committed to an effective second Chamber that works. As I have said before, I believe that we shall end up with an elected second Chamber. I approve of that, but I think that it will prove rather more costly than what we have now. The sooner we get round to considering that, the better; otherwise, we shall remain in the cloud cuckoo land in which we are currently living and in which we are told, "Get rid of the hereditaries, cut off their heads, and we can forget about everything else." We cannot.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) moved the motion very eloquently last night. I remember what he said, and I hope that others do as well. He was extremely lucid. Other Conservative Members have also made a strong case for the acceptance of this straightforward and simple proposal by all reasonable people. I am sure that only reasonable hon. Members are present now!
I do not often pray in aid the Lord Chancellor—save, of course, when I require a verdict on taste in wallpaper. For the benefit of those who do not already know, I should explain that it was I who found out what the Lord Chancellor was up to in that regard, and was able to acquaint the public with the facts. The Lord Chancellor described the other place as one of the busiest Chambers in the world, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the same point very forcefully. The other place is not a retirement home for faded politicians; it is an important working Chamber which does an enormously valuable job in scrutinising legislation, and is, I think, widely respected for doing that job. At a time when the House of Commons is, perhaps, not held in the highest public esteem, the other place is held in such esteem, not least because of the weighty advice that it gives and the experience that it brings to bear.

Mr. Grieve: The other place is certainly not a retirement home; but is not one of the odd features of the removal of hereditary peers the fact that it will become a little more like a retirement home for ex-politicians? Although there are working peers, a large number of peers do not do very much.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed; and it is possible that only those who are prepared to undertake to work for a certain number of hours a day—consistent with the working time directive, of course—will be eligible for nomination. The Patronage Secretary and her deputy—who has now left the Chamber—will have an important role to play: they will decide the composition of the other place. It is clear that, following the removal of the hereditary peers and the contribution that they can make, the advancement of people to the upper House will be possible only if they can undertake not to accept the post as a sinecure, but to slave away and do the work.
As we consider the burdens that will rest on those who remain in the upper House, and how those people should be remunerated, we should also consider what is involved in terms of the commitment that they give. I understand that the House of Lords sits for 143 days a year, for seven hours a day, and that in the last Session it achieved an all-time record of 228 days, or 1,604 hours, with 102 sittings after 10 pm. Having taken a short break, which I was invited to take by my former constituents, I can say that I notice how rarely this House sits after 10 pm. The fact that the other place has sat after 10 pm 102 times demonstrates the volume of activity there. If the hereditary peers are indeed to be removed, 759 potential contributors to the work of the upper House will be removed, and the full burden will descend on the 484 life peers, the Law Lords and the bishops—to the extent that they participate.
Not only will the burden increase on those who remain, but the upper House will be deprived of a huge amount of experience and knowledge. In due course, the House of Commons will consider weighty matters, not least whether we are to join the single currency. If the other House is neutered, and not enough people with the expertise to consider such matters in detail are prepared to give their time, we shall, in effect, have a unicameral arrangement. The House of Commons will be the sole source of scrutiny—and we know how much scrutiny is given by many Labour Members: we know that 100 are sent away every week so that they cannot clog up this place.

Mr. Letwin: Have not the Government an opportunity this evening to prove, by accepting the new clause, that they do not intend to neuter the House of Lords?

Mr. Howarth: Indeed. It behoves the Government to respond seriously to the new clause. I do not think that they have been entirely frank with the British people about the practical consequences of their proposals. Unless a review body is established to examine the salaries, or rather the compensation, for those of our fellow citizens who are to give up their time to scrutinise legislation in the other place, how on earth are we to persuade people to do the job?

Mr. James Gray: rose—

Caroline Flint: rose—

Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, courtesy and chivalry instruct me to give way to the hon. Lady.

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the proposition of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the second Chamber could exist with only 87 members, given his own suggestion that some 500 people could not cope with the work involved in the transitional period?

Mr. Howarth: Although I have been here for most the debate, I did not hear my right hon. Friend's suggestion. [Interruption.] I am advised that it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who made that suggestion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) makes an outstanding

contribution to the development of all sorts of fascinating ideas. He is an original thinker. He is not merely a time-server; he makes a valuable and stimulating contribution.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's panegyric, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was talking not about the interim Chamber, but about a pipe-dream that he had of some future Chamber. Frankly, it is an absurd proposition—I have told him that already. He was not talking about the Chamber that we are debating at the moment. That is the point.

Mr. Howarth: As ever, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, a former neighbour. Of course, we are debarred from addressing how the next House should be constituted. You would therefore rule me out of order, Mr. Lord, if I were to go further down that line, but the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst show that there is no shortage of ideas among Conservative Members. We merely have a temporary shortage of votes.
Mr.—Sir Alan; I was pausing merely to enable you to take your seat comfortably. I was referring to the work that has been done in the other place and the need, under the new arrangements, for adequate compensation to be awarded to those who will assume the responsibility of scrutiny in the other House. You were not in the Chair when I gave some statistics on the work that is carried out in the other House, but I conclude this section of my remarks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I am sorry. I have much more to impart to the Committee. I conclude my remarks on the section by pointing out that hereditary peers do almost half the key work of deputy speakers and form half the membership of Committees in the other place.
As I have said, some of the Committees of the other House—for example, those that deal with matters such as technology—enjoy a substantial reputation well beyond the walls of the palace of Westminster. Those Committees are made up largely of hereditary peers. If they are stripped, removed and booted out, the burden of responsibility for dealing with those important matters will rest on the remaining hereditaries. Who is to say that they will be able to assume that burden?
If the remaining hereditaries are not able to do so, and there is no proposal in the Bill to supplement them by any elected means in reinforcing that House, the only other source of expertise will be supplied by the patronage of the most patronage-conscious of Prime Ministers we have had since the second world war—the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).

Dr. Starkey: The hon. Gentleman has praised the work of the Select Committees of the House of Lords. He will know that one of the Select Committees with the greatest reputation is the Science and Technology Committee. Although it is true that some hereditary peers are members of that Select Committee, does he agree that its reputation rests largely on the fact that it has life peers who have pursued eminent scientific and engineering careers and bring technical and professional eminence to the Committee? There is no reason to suppose that other life


peers with equal scientific and engineering expertise will not easily fill the gaps in that Select Committee and add lustre to it.

Mr. Howarth: I was not seeking to make the point that life peers do not make a contribution. By definition, they do. Many are appointed to the other place because they are eminent in their field of expertise, but there is perhaps a difference of view between Labour Members and Conservative Members. Although, in our view, the hereditaries are a repository of expertise, that is not given proper acknowledgment by Labour Members.
I was talking about the burden of responsibility that will rest on the new interim Chamber, whatever we call it, following the changes that are introduced by the Bill, and the effect that that will have on scrutiny of important legislation which will come before Parliament. That legislation will be decided in the House of Commons, which is overwhelmingly dominated by one party and uses every opportunity to maximise its patronage. A neutered Chamber at the other end of the building will simply not have the capacity to examine that complex legislation, which will affect the future of this country and our people.
That is a grave charge against the Government. The new clause, modest as it is, at least seeks to address, in a way that we have found very difficult in respect of the Bill, the democratic deficit—what I like to call the scrutiny deficit—that will arise as a result of the passing of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said that we had been extremely fortunate to have the upper House on the cheap. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley spelled out graphically the difference in cost between that House and the House of Commons.
For the sake of those who were not here last night—I think that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Moms) was not, so he will benefit from it—I remind hon. Members that the total cost of the House of Lords in the previous Session was £39.4 million, whereas the House of Commons cost £241 million and the European Parliament, understandably, an excessive and outrageous £607 million. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) would like that. However, the average cost—it is important and particularly germane to the new clause—of a Member of Parliament is £366,000 and the cost of a peer is a mere £37,000; that is 10 per cent. of the cost of a Member of the House of Commons.
It comes back to the question: will we be able to run the other Chamber on the cheap without having a new clause that deals with that issue?

Mr. Linton: rose—

Mr. Rammell: rose—

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) will forgive me, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) sits on the Select Committee on Home Affairs with me, and I may need his help in future, so I will give way to him.

Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a price to be paid for that cheap second Chamber, in

that the debates in the other place are even more dull to listen to than the debate here in the past two days? I speak as someone who has personal experience of listening to days' worth of House of Lords debates in my former capacity as parliamentary editor of a national newspaper. Although I have sat through many incredibly dull debates, yesterday's was perhaps a connoisseur's choice.
There are many dull debates in the House of Commons, but nothing would prepare hon. Members for the boredom of the other place. One of the Press Association reporters who used to cover the House of Lords regularly—I am forbidden by the rules of the House from seeing whether she is sitting in her customary place in the Press gallery—claimed for a boredom bonus because of the boredom factor in the House of Lords.

Mr. Howarth: Was that not spoken like a true journalist and, particularly as the hon. Gentleman came from the Grauniad newspaper, completely understandable? He is absolutely right. The House of Lords is far too boring for our modern times. It deals with matters of substance, not all the trivia with which we have to deal too often in the House of Commons. Those are people who are serious. They have made a serious, eminent and, in many cases, outstanding contribution to our national life, and that lot wish them to be booted out of our Parliament.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The substance of the amendment is not boredom, or otherwise, but remuneration, so I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be headed off by the intervention that he invited. I might add while I am on my feet that he must also presume that every Member in the Committee has digested all that has been said in the earlier part of the debate.

Mr. Howarth: I am always more than happy to be guided by your excellent wisdom, Sir Alan, and I will not seek to pursue that argument. However, with your permission, I will just say that, when listening to "Yesterday in Parliament", I have often been hugely impressed by the quality of debate in the other place. It may sometimes be rather boring, but, to be perfectly candid, every hon. Member knows that, when we are scrutinising legislation, it is often rather more boring than we would like it to be and it seldom catches the headlines. If, as parliamentarians of either House, we try simply to catch headlines, rather than deal with the substance of the issues, the people will not be served properly.
The new clause tries to address how we will remunerate those on whose shoulders will rest the burden of scrutiny in the changed—I will not use the word "reformed", because I believe this process to be a profoundly undesirable change—composition of the other place.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Pretending for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious case, I shall just point out that there is a difference in the running of the two Houses, because Members of this House have considerable constituency responsibilities, which is not the case for the other place. My mother used to say that the difference in the quality of the post was noticeable because people were polite to Members of the other place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that that is a radical difference.


If we are to pursue the absurdity of this case, I hope that he will accept that there is no logical reason for the House of Lords. It happens to work and, as soon as we start interfering with it, we will get ourselves into the sort of muddle that he outlines.

Mr. Howarth: That is an extremely valid point, and I am disappointed to say that I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. I am a Conservative and I do not believe in change unless—

Mrs. Dunwoody: I know that.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that she knows that I am a Conservative—just in case anyone was in any doubt.
I believe that we should make change only where it needs to be made. I believe that the hon. Lady shares with me a concern that our Parliament is losing a great deal of its ability to hold the Executive to account, and I know that we agree that it does net matter which party is in government. There are enough parliamentarians around who believe in this place and will continue to make that point.
When considering how we will deal with the other place and the 484 life peers on whose shoulders the burden will rest, it is important to consider—this point has been made by a number of hon. Members—that life peers will not all have the same time to devote to proceedings in the other place as some of the hereditaries have had in the past, for one reason or another. The Government have appointed business men, leaders of the arts and so on to the other place. Such people are already leading busy lives and, if we were to rely on them, the place would grind to a halt. It is the hereditaries who are holding the fort and doing so much of the nitty-gritty, day-to-day work.
I am not against the appointment of such people, just as I was not against the appointment by previous Conservative Prime Ministers of business men with burdensome outside activities. I believe that, on the big occasions when the other place is dealing with important measures, those people should be able to come from their boardrooms and factories to provide up-to-the-minute evidence.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying too far from the substance of the new clause. I heard the same arguments deployed during the first debate on the first day in Committee. That would have been the appropriate time for him to make his remarks. He must confine his comments to the question of remuneration in the terms of the new clause.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as many of those individuals have a relatively small amount of time available, in order to make full use of their time at the House they will require substantial allowances for research? The increased burdens which will be placed on those busy people are such that, if there is not the proper research to enable them to make good-quality speeches and so on, the quality of our democracy will be damaged.

Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend. If those people are to assume additional responsibilities, they will have to have the means to carry them out; unless the Government intend to neuter the other place so that it is powerless to scrutinise legislation. If that is the case, the House could work its wicked way without any interference from the other place. It is right and proper to consider how best to equip those who remain in the other place with the tools necessary to carry out the scrutiny of legislation that the Government say—they pay lip service—they want them to do. If not, the Government should come clean and say, "We do not want anybody to interfere in our work. We are booting out one lot and we do not want to remunerate properly those who remain."

Caroline Flint: We have discussed the absence of so many hereditary peers and some life peers in the work of the other place. That has not happened overnight, but has been going on over generations. A minority of those who can take part in the proceedings in the other place actually do so. In the 18 years of Tory government, why did the Conservatives not propose a scheme to look at better attendance fees and allowances for those who work in the other place? Why has that matter arisen now? Is it just about trampling on the first stage of the abolition of the House of Lords and the hereditary principle?

Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Lady does not understand why I am raising this issue now, she does not understand the massive changes that those on her Front Bench propose. When we were in government, there was no reason to do anything other than what we did. Throughout the life of the previous Conservative Government, we reviewed the arrangements for the remuneration of Members of the upper House. Now, the hon. Lady and her party want to remove nearly 760 Members of that place, to leave 484. All those people are to be turfed out. If the Government—and the hon. Lady—believe that the current degree of scrutiny should continue, those who remain will have to shoulder the burden. That is why we think that it is right and proper that the question of remuneration, or at least a mechanism by which it can be properly reviewed, must be written into the Bill.
It is fair to say that the House has confidence in the pay review bodies which have been established for particular groups of professionals such as the armed forces, the police and nurses. We believe that, because they are professional and have a good track record, they could do a professional job in dealing with the requirements of those who will remain in the other place to scrutinise the legislation that will originate from the Government.
I should like to single out the case of one Member of the other place. I do not intend to criticise him, so I have not warned him that I intend to mention his name. Lord Simpson, a Labour peer whom I know only vaguely, is the chairman of GEC and has made a great contribution to our industrial life. In his case, a salary review body may not be required, because he is paid even more than the Lord Chancellor. I doubt that he was paid as much as the Lord Chancellor earned in private practice, but not many people in this country are. He was, of course, the ultimate fat cat.
Lord Simpson—who makes a very big contribution to our national life—may indeed not require so much secretarial support in, or compensation for, contributing


to the other place. Nevertheless, I tell the Minister that it is on the likes of Lord Simpson and other captains of industry that he and other hon. Members will have to rely to scrutinise legislation proposed by the Government. If we are to ask people like that to play a bigger part in scrutinising, we shall have to deal with how they are remunerated.
Some companies may say, "We cannot afford to lose our chairman for the required hours. Therefore, we shall cut his pay." That chairman may say, "Thank you very much, but I shall not attend. I cannot give up the time." The review body would be properly charged to consider such issues.
In the Committee's proceedings yesterday, the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an interesting, but disappointingly short, speech. He made the point that some of those in the other place were already sufficiently wealthy and would not need even £37,000 in support. As I was not able to tell him last night, I shall tell him now that those people could follow the example of Cabinet Ministers—with the exclusion, of course, of the Lord Chancellor, who does not apply; he takes his full salary—by forgoing some of their salary.
Simply because we are proposing that there should be a review body to deal with and to make recommendations on remuneration, no remaining life peer should feel required to accept all the money proposed as salary or compensation. Such people could forgo some of it, as Cabinet Ministers do.

Mr. Gray: Throughout my hon. Friend's speech, I have been reflecting on the irony of the situation. In town councils, county councils and district councils across the land, the Labour party—ably assisted by their friends, the Liberal Democrats—spends its entire time arguing that councillors are so badly remunerated that they must increase their allowances by attending as many committees as possible. Now, the Government are proposing reforming local government so that many councillors are wholly salaried. Although they propose making those changes across the country, they propose that people in the other place should not be remunerated properly. Is that not ironic?

Mr. Howarth: There is some irony in it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It cuts both ways.

Mr. Howarth: I cannot deny that; one has to be straightforward about the situation. However, I know that you would not wish me to go down the route of examining the issue of local government remuneration, Sir Alan, as I would be straying from the subject of the new clause and the amendment.
I have attempted to make a relatively short contribution to our proceedings—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) should not shake his head. We are debating very serious matters. He sat there and said absolutely nothing. Some of us believe that the legislation is profoundly unacceptable, profoundly wrong and profoundly damaging to our country. The Bill would put nothing in the place of the current upper House.

If the hon. Gentleman does not like my speech, let him stand up and say so, rather than sitting there like a silent so-and-so. Does he have something to say? Would he like to intervene? No. Is that not significant? We are debating an issue on which the future government of our country depends, but the hon. Gentleman can only sit there, shake his head and say absolutely nothing.

Mr. Rammell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Conservative Members' tactics and lengthy speeches are an attempt to filibuster, so that, ultimately, the Government will be forced to impose a guillotine—so that he can cry shame and say that the Government have done something that they should not have done? Is it not simply a naked tactic and an abuse of parliamentary procedure?

The Chairman: Order. I have heard enough of that exchange. Let us get back to the substance.

Mr. Howarth: Thank you very much, Sir Alan. All I should say is that, were I filibustering, I would be ruled out of order. I am not seeking to filibuster. Labour Members who know me will know that I feel passionately about the issue. If I have spent some time on it, it was merely to try to explain to hon. Members the consequences that would flow from the legislation.
The Committee is considering a new clause and an amendment. I feel passionately about this matter, and have sought to argue, with as much humour as I can command, that the measures would add to the Bill. I therefore hope that the Government will consider very carefully the arguments made in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, by other Conservative Members and, perhaps, even by me. I hope that the Committee will take those arguments into account, and perhaps even respond sympathetically to them.

Mr. Heald: One of the arguments that the Government seem to be making is that it is premature for us to discuss salary arrangements for the House of Lords. They seem to be saying, "In the interim House, the Lords will be doing the same job that they are doing now. It is too early to say what the future arrangements should be, because the royal commission hasn't yet reported." It has occurred to me during the debate that that is a typically jobsworth approach.
Earlier in the debate, hon. Members mentioned an American President who was unable to walk down the sidewalk and chew gum at the same time. All too often in the United Kingdom, we take a similar approach—in not doing two things at once. Why cannot the royal commission and the Senior Salaries Review Body work simultaneously, each examining one of the two issues that will have to be decided for the future? One of them—the commission—could consider composition of the House of Lords, and the other could consider what pay and allowances Members of the other place should receive if any of the running options for the other place were to be taken.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested the option of creating a senate comprised of about 87 members. If we opted for such a scheme, the senators would require very substantial allowances if they were to do their job properly. Anyone


who has been to the American Senate will know that Senators work across such large geographical and policy areas that they require very large staff. When one goes to a meeting with an American Senator, one spends half an hour with a chief staff officer who is in charge of a specific policy issue before spending only 10 minutes with the Senator to discuss broad policy issues. The detail is dealt with by a Senator's staff.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Heald: Yes, of course I shall.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who can have 10 minutes with me any time he likes. Does he agree that the issue we are debating cannot be examined in a static environment? Does he agree that both the commission and the review body will have to examine the issue in the context of a Scottish Parliament and possibly—as I should prefer—an English Parliament? Would not an examination within that context put a different complexion not only on a new upper Chamber, but on the role of this place? All those matters would have to be taken into account as the situation developed.

Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many of the duties currently undertaken by Scottish Members will be dealt with by Members of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, we should examine whether, in future, English Members—who will be performing both sets of duties in this place—and Scottish Members require the same staff and other back-up. The matter will have to be examined. I am not saying that we will necessarily conclude that Members of the Scottish Parliament should not have a very substantial allowance. I am saying that there would be no harm in asking the Senior Salaries Review Body to conduct a very wide-ranging inquiry not only into the situation in Scotland and Wales but, more importantly, in the House of Lords. In parallel with the deliberations of the royal commission, the SSRB should consider the options, including a senate and the proposed interim Chamber, and produce a range of recommendations for the salary and allowance packages in each case.
4 pm
It is wrong for the Government to dismiss the issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—particularly Labour Members—voted enthusiastically to increase our office costs allowance to ensure that we had proper research back-up. Is it right to expect the other place to go on as now? The Government cannot have it both ways. If they want a serious House of Lords that has been reformed or changed for the better, they must accept that reducing the number of people engaged in the other place will result in an increasing work load for those who are left. That may mean that more research back-up is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) talked about busy men who make a living outside the other place and go there to make contributions to debates in the evenings. They will need much more research back-up to be able to continue doing the job properly with an increased work load.
The Government pretend to be keen on Parliament and to want a decent Parliament doing a decent job, although their actions do not necessarily correspond with that. Is it

not sinister for them to reduce the numbers in the other place, increase their work load and refuse to give them proper research facilities? Do they want a hobbled House of Lords? There is a strong suspicion that we shall never get to the second stage. We have been pressing hard for it to avoid ending up with a hobbled House of Lords.

Mr. Miller: I should like to be clear about which part of the Conservative argument the hon. Gentleman is following. His analogy with the American Senate, made up of 100 people, loosely follows the argument of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which was described by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) as absurd. Dividing £39 million among the 87 Senators proposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would leave a budget per head of about £450,000. Would that not be enough? Which argument is the hon. Gentleman following?

Mr. Heald: The real problem is that, although the Prime Minister said that the duty-free regime should not be replaced until a permanent successor regime had been established, he is prepared to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords with no clear idea of where he is going.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am unwillingly drawn to intervene on the hon. Gentleman. This is the umpteenth time that I have heard that argument, among the many other ludicrous arguments from the Conservatives. Of all the ludicrous points that I have heard, comparing the replacement of the duty-free regime, which has been under discussion for four or five years, with a debate that has been taking place for most of the century is the worst.

Mr. Heald: The right hon. Lady makes my point. How ludicrous that on duty free—an issue of much less importance—the Government say that there has to be a permanent successor regime before the existing one is replaced, but, on the future of Parliament, which is critical to parliamentary democracy and the life of this country, they do not. They just take a pig in a poke and kick the issue into the long grass, waiting to see what the royal commission says. That laughable proposition has put us in this difficulty. I do not know what the royal commission is going to come up with, because I am not on it and it has not yet started its deliberations.

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Yes, it has; it has had one meeting.

Mr. Heald: I am glad that progress is being made. The only way to speed matters up—which is important—is for the Senior Salaries Review Body, which will have to consider the issue at some stage, to start now rather than waiting for four years, or however long it takes to get the royal commission report. Let us start the work now so that we can make some progress. People in this place should not have to work on the basis that it is a privilege to be here; neither should those at the other end of the Corridor. That is the effect of not giving a proper allowance for decent research facilities in the other place.
The new clause is well conceived. After a good debate in which many important points have been made, I hope that the Government will not come back with the contentious attitude that we have just heard from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Tipping: Some serious points have been made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who introduced it last night. I understand why he is not here this afternoon. He returned to an issue that was discussed on Second Reading—the value of the hereditary and life peers in the other place. Several hon. Members have challenged me and my hon. Friends to support that argument. I have no hesitation in doing so. My colleagues at the other end of the building do a good job. They work hard and we should respect and value what they have achieved over many centuries. However, that does not justify the existing system. There is an acceptance across the House that the system has to change.
We get good value from the Lords. It is important to set the record straight. Life peers and hereditary peers work hard. I should like to give some figures. Some 40 per cent. of life peers attend two thirds of the sessions and 34 per cent. of them attend less than one third. Of the hereditary peers, only 20 per cent. attend two thirds of the sessions and 67 per cent. attend less than one third of the time. I am not criticising anybody. Those are the facts. There are 200 hereditary peers who have never attended.

Mr. Grieve: I find it difficult to do the calculations immediately, but I am sure that the Minister can clarify whether those statistics show that the preponderance of day-to-day participation in numerical terms is by hereditary peers. We have tried to address the serious point that a substantial voluntary contribution from hereditary peers has provided the dominating ethos of attendance in the other place.

Mr. Tipping: That may be the case. I shall do the sums. However, if the House and the other place pass the Bill, we shall still have a second Chamber with more than 500 Members. That is large in international terms. Those who have spoken in the debate have argued that 500 is not enough to do the important business at the other end of the building. I do not agree. The average daily attendance in the other place is around 400. I have tried to find Divisions involving more than 300 Members in the other place, and that happens most infrequently. The real work load and delivery of the vote are carried by fewer than 300 people.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have said that all the peers have a bad time and are not well regarded or well treated. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred last night to peers' poor accommodation. I have some sympathy with that view, and I believe that accommodation in this House could also be better. We need to work on that, but these are matters for the relevant House authorities—they are not within my gift, or that of the Government.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked last night about the rates of pay—in real terms, the expenses that peers receive. He quoted the figures. I will not argue with

the thrust of what he said, but he quoted the last set of figures, rather than the current set. However, it makes no real difference. The attendance allowance and expenses are meagre, and I suspect that they will need to be looked at.
Despite the shortage of good accommodation, and despite the rates of pay, there appears to be no problem in attracting candidates. I will remind the Committee of the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman indulged in patronage and appointed life peers. He made it clear that his acceleration rate was not as high as that of some others.

Sir Patrick Cormack: It was a deceleration rate.

Mr. Tipping: I am sure that that was the point, and that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup was proud of his achievements. On Second Reading, he said:
Every time I created one, nine people turned up saying that it should have been them."—[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 759.]
There speaks a man who has done the job. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have not heard it advanced that we cannot find high-quality peers to do the job that we require.
Lying behind the new clause is an assumption that has been made throughout our consideration of the Bill—that the transitional House will be our end goal, and that there will not be a second or final phase. I wish to reinforce a point that has been made perfectly clear—that that is not our intention. We need to deliver and finish the job, and the White Paper indicates the timetable. Some argue that the timetable is too short, while others argue that it is too long. I am not sure of the view of the Opposition, which seems to vary.

Mr. Winnick: If the Conservatives believe their own propaganda—and I have some doubts—why should they believe that, if we are willing, as I am, to accept an interim arrangement in which 93 hereditaries remain, that should be permanent? We want all hereditary peers to be removed. Stage 2 is as important to us as it is—so they say—to them.

Mr. Tipping: Our manifesto made it clear—as my hon. Friend has reinforced—that we want to see the end of hereditary peers. If an amendment to that effect were tabled in another place, we would oppose it at the moment. However, if that eventually came to pass, it would be a trigger for us to make haste more quickly. The Committee must be clear that we will complete the process.
It has been suggested that a reformed House of Lords will cost more than the present House. I do not deny that costs are important, but the issue was highlighted in the White Paper. We have specifically drawn the attention of the royal commission to costs. In considering the various possible options for the long-term composition of the fully reformed House, it is important to take into account the public expenditure implications. Some will cost more than others—that is a fact. At this stage, we have made no assessment of the additional costs and of whether the House will provide good value for money.
4.15 pm
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out last night, the time will come to review costs. That time should be at the end of the long-term review, after the royal commission, when we are clear on the functions and composition of the newly reformed second Chamber. At that stage, it might be appropriate to invite the Prime Minister to invite the SSRB to look at the salaries and expenses of Members of the fully reformed House. That issue would fall properly within the body's remit, and I hope that, at that point, there will be such an examination.
This is not the time to adopt the approach advocated in the new clause. We must be clear where we are going in the long term. We need to ensure that the second Chamber plays a valuable role and that its functions and composition are resolved via the royal commission and the Joint Committee, and via a consensus that we hope we can build up. That would be the point at which to look at salaries. Given that, I hope that the Committee will reject the new clause.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is a reasonable man who tries to show that he has listened to the argument, and tries to respond constructively when points are put to him. For that, we all honour him. Quite honestly, however, he has not responded to the debate at all. Let me put it simply and in words as clear I can muster—if the Bill is enacted, we will have a House of Lords, as from the end of this Session, which will consist of the present life peers.
Incidentally, I must correct the Minister. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), never created or recommended a single hereditary peer.

Mr. Tipping: I did not say that.

Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Minister consults Hansard tomorrow, he will see that, inadvertently, he did.

Mr. Tipping: If that is the case, let me correct the record now. That was certainly not my intention.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I fully accept that.
We shall have life peers, perhaps augmented as a result of the Weatherill amendment. On the Minister's own admission, they have a heavy work load. I am glad that he paid tribute to the work done in the other place by hereditary and life peers. He said that before—it was gracious of him—and he said it again today.
On the Minister's own admission, there are rarely more than 300 peers in Divisions; upon that 300, the burden descends. He has admitted that roughly half that 300 are hereditary peers—so upon 150 life peers, the burden of scrutiny and manning Committees will descend. We believe that it is wrong to place that large burden on that small number of people without asking the Senior Salaries Review Body to consider their remuneration.
The Minister made half a concession when he readily admitted that there would be a time when it would be appropriate to refer the matter, but he must acknowledge that we have ahead of us at least four years with the so-called interim House, and he has himself said that the

creation of a new House will depend to a large extent on consensus—he certainly conceded that the speed at which it is created will depend on consensus—so that burden will be placed on those 150 people for an indeterminate and possibly considerable time.
I hope that the Government will reflect on what has been said. Serious and sensible points have been made about the burden and the remuneration for it. I hope that, building on the Minister's half-concession, the Government will consider adding a provision, before the Bill goes to the other place, to enable the review body to be involved.

Mrs. Beckett: No chance.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady's interjection is in churlish contrast to the Minister's emollient words. I would prefer to accept the sweet reasonableness of Nottingham rather than the intransigence of Derby. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman cannot do that, because he did not move it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 14

WRIT OF ACCELERATION

'( ) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the operation of a writ of acceleration other than preventing the recipient from becoming a member of the House of Lords.'.—[Sir Patrick Cormack.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 51—Claims of peerage and precedence—
'— Nothing in this Act shall question the right of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords to consider claims of peerage and of precedence.'.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not want to detain the Committee long on these new clauses, because those that follow are of even greater importance. The new clauses concern the hereditary peerage, but we do not seek through them in any way to revisit—to use the awful American jargon—the argument whether hereditary peers should sit in the other place.
When the Bill becomes law—because of the Government's majority, it will inevitably do so—we shall still have an hereditary monarchy, which the Government defend and accept, and an hereditary peerage. Nothing in the Bill does anything about the hereditary peerage as such and the Bill contains nothing antagonistic to the hereditary principle in itself. Not many hon. Members seriously disagree with the hereditary principle. You, Sir Alan, are an hereditary Haselhurst, and you have taken over from an hereditary Lord. We are all, in our individual capacities, part of that great pageant.
Many people take great delight in the hereditary principle as exemplified in the hereditary peerage, and many life peers take delight in the one hereditary element


that they have: the choice of a coat of arms. I have had many interesting conversations with Labour life peers about their armorial achievements and how glad they are to have them and to be able to pass them on to their descendants. That is an entirely reasonable sentiment.
I need make no apology for saying that many people in this country take delight in a bit of pomp and pageantry, regarding colour as one of the better attributes of public life. Colour is best exemplified in some of our state pageantry: the state opening of Parliament, trooping the colour and all the rest of it.
New clause 14 deals with the rather arcane procedure of the writ of acceleration. Through it, we seek an assurance from the Government that the procedure will continue. We are not talking about the person who is accelerated to the title sitting in the House of Lords. That is not the issue.
New clause 51 is concerned with disputes over peerages. As we know, there are occasionally disputed peerages, just as there are disputed wills. There was a colourful example only a few months ago when a former Member of Parliament, Colin Moynihan, became Lord Moynihan as the result of an exceptionally colourful legal case. We expect the procedure to continue and the responsibility to remain with the House of Lords.
The new clauses are essentially of a probing nature. I do not believe that the Government intend to change the law in this respect, but we seek an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: After many years of knowing you, Sir Alan, I suddenly realise that I am addressing the hereditary Haselhurst. I never knew that a name amounted to a title, but I am charmed by the colourful description given by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who is no doubt overcome by the romance of the upper House. I am most grateful to him, and to the Opposition generally, because today, amid all the awful lot of talking that we have been engaged in, wonderful creatures about which one had long forgotten have galloped back on to the contemporary horizon.
Even the Scottish peerage looms in amendments that we have not discussed. That is very nice, and I am sure that many people in Ireland are getting terribly excited at the prospect of the Opposition finding a way in an amendment—albeit one that is unlikely to be successful—of reviving their hopes of a title after all these years.
Suddenly, this writ of acceleration has appeared. It just so happened that, through accident rather than erudition, I was one of the few hon. Members who had some vague idea before we started these discussions of what a writ of acceleration was. When, last night, I intimated to my Front-Bench team that I had such a vague idea, I became an instant expert in the eyes of others who were, perhaps, as ignorant as I was before I found out a little about the matter.
I went to the Library to have a word with those who advise and carry out research for us. One approaches such people with some humility. I said to the gentleman concerned, "I want to ask you about a writ of acceleration. I know what it is, but I want to find out more." I expected him then to inform me in great detail about that historical operation, but his face fell and he seemed overcome with

the fact that he had no idea what I was talking about. He said, "I'm glad you know what it is, Mr. Temple-Morris, because I haven't the first idea. Please tell me."
The new clause should not be taking up our time, but it provides for some interesting historical discussion. I am sure that the Opposition are itching to get on to the next group of new clauses. Having sat and listened to them for so long on the previous group, I feel that, had they reined in their remarks a little on that group, they might have deserved to get on to the next. As they do not quite deserve that, I shall continue to explore the writ of acceleration, and I hope that many other hon. Members will find the subject most interesting.
The new clause is bogus.

Mr. Tipping: I wonder whether the time has now come for my hon. Friend to give other people a tutorial.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I shall do my best, but I do not wish to speak for longer than the occasion demands. The new clause would provide that the writ of acceleration should continue, but the reason for it will not continue. It therefore becomes contemporary nonsense and an historical perversion of the concept.
A writ of acceleration is the use of a junior family title to bring the son, or occasionally grandson, into the Lords, when the father who is the holder of the senior title is already sitting there. That was usually done because the king thought that the son would be handy to have in the Lords, and that could be for reasons of state or reasons of court. Such sons were brought into the House of Lords while their fathers were sitting there. Because such families tended to bristle with various titles as they ascended through the peerage—they also assimilated titles through marriage—the king often deemed it a waste of time to create a new peerage for the son, and he therefore took one of the courtesy titles belonging to the family. He was then accelerated into the service of the state.
The device has been seldom used over the years. Before the time of Henry VIII, it was quite popular, but, as mediaeval times passed, it was used less. Lord Cranborne—who is in a position to do some contemporary good, although his previous track record on Lords reform is not all that it might be—decided, for his own reasons, that he could do without a life peerage. I had no clue what a writ of acceleration was until Lord Cranborne decided to enter the House of Lords, having left this place after two Parliaments, and to take one of the Cecil family's old hereditary titles—Baron Cecil of Essendon, which was created in about 1601. He sits in the House of Lords in splendid anonymity as Lord Cranborne, which is a courtesy title in its own right.
I do not know which of my former hon. Friends has trawled round to dig this concept up, but the new clause is utterly pointless. No one can be accelerated anywhere if there is nowhere to accelerate them to. The new clause would merely create, for no reason, more than one active peerage in a family when there would be nothing to be active about. The families to which the new clause would


apply are in the upper echelons of the peerage, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire knows perfectly well, and they are all bristling with courtesy titles anyway.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Temple-Morris: I cannot resist giving way.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is the very embodiment of the hereditary principle, because he has a double-barrelled surname, which suggests that somebody had a hereditary interest at some point in his forebears' past. There is one possible application of the writ of acceleration in future—if the eldest son of an existing hereditary peer were to be made a life peer. He would not be able to use one of the courtesy titles of his family when sitting in the House of Lords. The retention of the writ of acceleration would allow him to use a family title even though the hereditary peerage no longer existed.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The hon. Gentleman is a friend, if no longer an hon. Friend and, with all respect, he must realise that this is 1999 and we are working on the abolition of the House of Lords as it stands at present, which many of us have advocated for a long time. We do not know what we will end up with, but the membership of the House of Lords, and the whole concept of the peerage, will be dramatically changed. The last thing we want, with all respect to Lord Cranborne, is to have a lot of accelerated people wandering around among those who may be in part appointed and in the main elected. We are dealing with two different worlds, but so much of the comment from the Opposition belongs firmly to the world that is past. Having said that, it is enjoyable to talk about it.
The loss of the concept of writs of acceleration is nothing to be upset about. The families involved do not need to be accelerated anywhere, and the senior ranks of the peerage already have below them two ranks of courtesy titles for their sons and grandsons. That will go on, because nobody will disturb it, but it will no longer be related by automatic right to the legislature and these Houses of Parliament. That reform is long overdue.
New clause 51 deals with the right of the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords to consider claims of peerage and precedence. It is totally unnecessary, because the Bill—which is an interim Bill, anyway—will have no effect in that area. The new clause is pointless in relation to the Bill, but it will be relevant to phase 2. I am grateful to the Opposition because so much of what they have said will be relevant to phase 2, although they have raised it during phase 1. The structure of the Committee for Privileges is a good example of what will have to be dealt with in phase 2 of the reform of the House of Lords. Obviously, the new upper House will have a Privileges Committee, but it will no longer consider issues to do with the hereditary peerage and matters of precedence. Those issues will have to be considered elsewhere, along with many other appendages of the House of Lords that will no longer be relevant.

Sir Patrick Cormack: That is true, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that we are dealing with an interim stage of indeterminate length. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run and said some interesting and amusing 

things, but we have tabled the new clauses to try to obtain some assurances from the Government about the interim period.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The hon. Gentleman is asking for something that depends on something that is not in the Bill. The Government have included nothing in the interim Bill that means that the hon. Gentleman's question needs to be asked. The new clauses are, therefore, completely unnecessary. In the House of Lords of the future, the issues of privilege and peerage will be separated. The Committee for Privileges will have to be reconstituted, because at present, it is a mixture of life and hereditary peers, including any four of the Law Lords. That will need to be addressed when the upper House becomes a more political, reformed and, in no small part, elected House. It has still to be decided whether the Law Lords will remain.
I have enjoyed this little contribution, Sir Alan. I gather that not only are you now hereditary, but I am also, and that has provided a bond between us that we have never quite had before. I did not realise that having a double-barrelled name raised me to that status. I am flattered, but now that the House of Lords is to be abolished, I am too late informed that I might have some hope of inheriting a role in it. It is very sad that the word has come too late.

Mr. Forth: The unease I expressed earlier has now increased. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), who is obviously a close confidant of the Government, appears to know a lot more about stage 2 than any member of the Opposition, and possibly more than any member of the Government. Having said that, I have some sympathy for his remarks.
I want to raise the question of what lies behind new clause 51. It is the new clause that attracted my attention more than any of the others, because it appears to highlight some of the confusion that will undoubtedly face us during stage 1, let alone beyond stage 1. New clause 51 refers to:
the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords
in the context of
claims of peerage and of precedence.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the role of the Committee for Privileges in another place, which is analogous to the role of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in this place. One may assume that such a Committee would have to continue in another place, regardless of its structure and even of its function or its composition. In the same way that this place needs a Privileges and Standards Committee because of its unique role, so would any other legislative Chamber. That much is fairly safe common ground.
However, when one comes to matters of peerage and precedence, the picture becomes more complicated, because we are contemplating the role of a Committee involved in matters of peerage and precedence at a time when the structure and nature of peerages are being changed. We are to have different sorts of peerage; some peers—we believe, we are led to believe, we think, we imagine—will remain in the interim House, while others will be outside; therefore, some will be legislative peers, while others will be non-legislative, in rather the same way as baronets have titles, but no legislative role. I think


that I am right in saying, although I stand to be corrected, that, at some time in the dim and very distant past, baronets had a legislative role—but no matter, they have no such role now and we do not contemplate giving them one, unless the Minister is about to inform us that that is to be part of stage 2.
In the context of new clause 51, it might be helpful if the Minister told us more about how he envisages the relationship between the different sorts of peerage that are going to result from the Government's reforms; and about the role that the Committee for Privileges in the upper House will have in that environment of change. Does he believe that that Committee will be secure in its continuing role, or that it might need to change to take account of the different sorts of peerages that will arise? That point is detailed and rather technical, but such are the issues that the Government have to consider seriously. The value of the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends is to enable us to look as far ahead as possible.
I shall give a different example, if the Committee will bear with me. I have been allowed to mention in passing, Sir Alan, my preference for a wholly elected upper House. In that context, I accept that we would need a body analogous to the Supreme Court of the United States, because the judicial function of the upper House, as we have always understood it, would have to disappear. That is an example of an extremely important institutional change that would have to take place consequent to changes in the upper House as a legislature. The new clause gives a different, more specific, but nevertheless important example of the sort of thinking that will be needed as we go through the process of change. The issue is important and deserves careful consideration, so I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having raised it in the form of new clause 51.

Mr. James Clappison: I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple—Morris) interesting and enjoyable. I hope that I do not speak as a half-forgotten creature galloping over the landscape, as he put it. Even though a Minister not currently sitting on the Treasury Bench described me the other day as a "young fogey", I do not feel like a young fogey, and I assure the Committee that I have no expectation of inheriting a title or anything like one.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the position of writs of acceleration, but I am somewhat perplexed by the conclusion at which he arrives after that analysis. His analysis was that our proposals were pointless, because, after the reforms, there would be nowhere to which anyone would be accelerated; therefore, reform was long overdue and it should all be done away with. That causes me some concern because, although I do not want to present myself as a defender of ancient rights and privileges of the aristocracy and their different titles, I am somewhat suspicious of those who want to modernise such matters. I have no strong feelings either way, but I know that many people derive great pleasure from the contemplation of our country's history, as represented by the hereditary principle and the panoply of titles that goes with it.
The creation of many of the titles may well have been somewhat arbitrary: perhaps Edward III created the rank of duke only because it was convenient for creating the first Duke of Lancaster; and other monarchs created other titles for reasons of convenience and pragmatism. None the less, hereditary titles are part of our history, and I cannot see the point of getting excited about them and trying to root out the phenomenon wherever it occurs. If there is to be any change, I look to the Minister for a careful explanation of whether the Government's reforms will bring any other changes to the way in which the system of hereditary titles operates. If the Government are proposing any such changes, I want to know the reasons why.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, for I have become confused by his argument. I think that he completely misunderstands the position of the Government and of Labour Members. No one has any particular objection to someone holding one, 20 or even 30 titles, if that is what that person wants; our objection is to the fact that a title can entitle a person to take part in the legislative process in the upper Chamber.

Mr. Clappison: It is reasonable for the hon. Lady to make that point, but it is not the point that we are currently debating. The hon. Member for Leominster argued that the new clauses were meaningless in view of the changes that the hon. Lady wants; therefore, reform was long overdue and there was no reason not to do away with the whole system. If that is the Government's position, I want to know why they would want to do away with it, because there are many other features of our constitution and the fabric of our national life that might appear pointless and difficult to justify, but give some people a lot of pleasure and are regarded as part of our history.
I do not sit up at night tearing through the pages of "Burkes Peerage" to read about the hereditary peers. If someone derives pleasure from being an hereditary peer, that is a matter for that person; I have no strong feelings either way. However, I know that many people enjoy the contemplation of this country's history, so if there are to be any changes other than those that are necessary to bring about reform of the legislature, I want to hear the Minister explain them.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it will avoid my trying to catch your eye, Sir Alan. The key issue is whether the writ of acceleration allows somebody who would be entitled to an hereditary peerage to take one of his father's courtesy titles if he is appointed as a life peer to the House of Lords. As that has nothing whatever to do with getting rid of hereditary peers, my hon. Friend may agree that it would be wise for the Government to respond to that point at the close of the debate.

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I must admit that securing a courtesy title in that way is not something that I have contemplated personally, but it is an important issue for others. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister will want to address it.
I want to move on to the important issues which we will discuss later of who will constitute the new legislature and how we will ensure that the second Chamber is robust and


strong and does its job. However, I am not prepared to let hon. Members—I address my remarks slightly tongue in cheek to the hon. Member for Leominster—who wish to present themselves as being at the cutting edge of new Labour's modernisation to get away with claiming that they are achieving long-overdue reform by doing away with something that is pointless to them, but gives pleasure to others.

Mr. Fallon: On new clause 14, the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) did the Committee a service by giving us a brief tutorial about the origins of the writ of acceleration. He certainly educated me: I always thought that a writ of acceleration was used when an elder son wished to serve in the House of Lords—because it was thought that he would serve some purpose by so doing—when his father was too old to serve or did not wish to do so. I did not know that writs were used to allow an elder son to serve alongside his father. I assumed that the writs were designed to enable an elder son who was due to assume his place in the House of Lords to do so slightly sooner because of particular family circumstances, and so on.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I thought that I should respond as I have been referred to so many times—I just missed intervening on the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I hope that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was listening to my tutorial. My point was that, like the monarchy, peers take their places in the House of Lords for life. That situation will be reformed and changed for the upper House. The question is whether it is relevant for a subsidiary title within a family to be used to accelerate the accession of a son chosen by the king or the Government to the House of Lords. The new clause is totally unnecessary because, when the House of Lords is reformed, the writ of acceleration procedure will fall with it; it is completely irrelevant. I would have thought that any other issues are a matter for the College of Heralds.

Mr. Fallon: As the writ of acceleration will fall in the new reformed Chamber, it is important that we understand what is being dispensed with. That is why this little debate on new clause 14 has done the Committee a service.
Turning to new clause 51, the Minister will have to clarify exactly what will happen to the Committee for Privileges in terms of the handling of titles. The legislation abolishes not the hereditary peerage—as the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) pointed out—but the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. Hereditary titles will continue, so claims to them will recur. There are constant squabbles and competing claims for titles within families. Such instances are not as unique as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) might think—I cite the case of Lord Ampthill a few years ago. So long as titles exist, there will occasionally be disputes about who has the proper claim to them.
The Government must explain exactly how those claims will be handled in future. Do the Government intend to allow that role to be performed outside Parliament? Is the Minister suggesting that it might be transferred to some other body, such as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Garter King of Arms and his team—who knows? At the very least,

the tabling of this new clause has enabled the Committee to explore the issue and has reminded us all that, when we start tinkering with the upper House, a range of subsidiary questions emerge that prove that the Government have not thought the measure through.

Mr. Tipping: This has been a short but interesting debate on the Bill's effect on the institution of the hereditary peerage. The new clauses in question deal with the specific issues of, first, writs of acceleration; and, secondly, claims to peerage. I take it from the way in which the clauses were introduced that they are of an inquiring and probing nature, and I hope to reassure the Committee in that regard.
Before discussing the new clauses, I shall comment on the effect of the Bill on the institution of the peerage generally—an issue that concerned the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and others.
I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill will not affect the peerages in question. There will be no effects save concerning the House of Lords. The peers will continue to exist. The heraldry, the pomp, the circumstance will still exist. The tourist attraction will still exist. It will remain open to Her Majesty to create hereditary peers, but they will not carry the right to attend and vote in the House of Lords.
The privileges of peerage that do not relate to membership of Parliament will remain. The precedence, ranks, titles, rights to armorial bearings and rules of succession will all remain. That may disappoint some of my hon. Friends, but others, certainly on the Opposition Benches, as well as many on the Government Benches, will celebrate the fact that the rich tapestry will remain.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister advise me on how the new clause would affect the preamble to future Bills? He will notice that they always begin:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal".
Will that need to be changed? At the moment, Lords Temporal include hereditaries and life peers. Must new Acts of Parliament make it clear that the Queen has been advised only by some peers and not all Lords Temporal?

Mr. Tipping: I do not envisage change, but I shall check the matter and write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Grieve: As the preamble goes on to state that those temporal peers are those
in this present Parliament assembled",
that is, presumably, already the defining category.

Mr. Tipping: We will have to see. These are precise points, which link to the point about the need to consider the effect of the Bill on wider peerage issues. I am fairly confident that there will be no change in the preamble to Bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) answered on the issue of writs of acceleration, but I shall reinforce the message. New clause 14 misunderstands what "acceleration" means. It means the issue of a writ of summons to Parliament to the heir


of a peer who has more than one peerage, to allow him to sit in the Lords. As my hon. Friend said, as there will no longer be an hereditary element, there is no need to accelerate to a destination that no longer exists.
The only purpose of the writ is to confer membership of the House of Lords. It does not create a new title; it gives ownership of the title to the new recipient. Therefore, once hereditary peers are no longer eligible to receive writs of summons in the name of their hereditary peerage, there is no mechanism for issuing the writ. The issue of a writ of acceleration would be the issue of a writ by virtue of an hereditary peerage and, as such, is covered by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked whether a writ of acceleration could be used for a son if his father took a life peerage. Clearly, as the son is not receiving the writ of summons to go to the other place, the matter does not arise.

Mr. Grieve: I am sorry to labour the point, but let us take the example of Lord Cranborne. If his right to sit as an hereditary peer were to go and, subsequently, he were made a life peer, he would presumably not be able to take, if he wished to do so, the title of the barony of Essendon. That could be granted only by acceleration—the very thing that will no longer be possible. Will the Minister confirm that that decorative little bit of our past will disappear?

5 pm

Mr. Tipping: I will have to take advice on the matter, although my view is different from the hon. Gentleman's. To put it commonly, as they might in Nottingham, Lord Cranborne's title is another gong that he wears, and he is entitled to retain that gong. The key point is that the writ of acceleration is the writ of summons, and if there is nowhere to be summoned to, there is no question of a writ of acceleration. I had hoped to avoid any reference to Lord Cranborne, who has been paid a great deal of attention in the context of this debate.
I shall now discuss the question raised by new clause 51, which concerns the rights of the House of Lords in relation to claims of peerage and of precedence. A former colleague, now Lord Moynihan, was mentioned, among other examples.
I shall try to reassure the House that nothing changes. Difficult cases of claims of peerage will still be referred to the House of Lords for consideration, in the way that claims of Irish peerage continue to be referred to the Lords long after anyone has been able to sit in the Lords by virtue of an Irish title.
Although, under the Bill as it stands, no hereditary peers would be Members of the upper House, the accumulated wisdom of the House on the matter of peerage claims and precedents would still be available. I believe that the only requirement laid down in the Lords Standing Orders for hearing peerage claims is that three of the four Lords of Appeal need to be present. They will remain in the upper House because they will be members of a continuing Committee for Privileges, which will sit on the case.

Mr. Fallon: How can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that that will happen? Presumably, it will be for

the new House to decide on its own Committees and their functions. How can the Government be sure now that that new House will consider claims to titles that have nothing to do with itself?

Mr. Tipping: We are talking of a long historic tradition; a House of Lords Committee for Privileges that has existed and will continue to exist. It may well be within the gift of the other place to change its Standing Orders, but the Bill will change nothing in that regard; that is already within its gift. We intend the Committee for Privileges to continue, with three of the four Lords of Appeal sitting on cases.
As hon. Members know, these are technical and highly legal matters. There is no automatic qualification. The continuing Committee for Privileges will have to exercise its judgment. Given those reassurances on writs of acceleration and on the continuation of the House of Lords Committee for Privileges, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he has responded to this brief debate. I also thank him for his unequivocal assurance on behalf of the Government about the continuation of the peerage and so many of the colourful things that go with it, which obviously mean as much to him as they mean to me and many others.
The Minister may underestimate the difficulties that the Government will face as they move towards establishing their next Chamber, but for the immediate future we are grateful to him, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

CRITERIA FOR CONFERMENT OF LIFE PEERAGE (No. 1)

'(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.
(2) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.—[Dr. Fox.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Fox: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 2)—

'(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.
(2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Session of Parliament in which it is made.
(3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.


(4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.

New clause 26—Criteria for conferment of life peerage (No. 3)—

'(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.
(2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Parliament in which it is made.
(3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.
(4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.


Amendment No. 11, in the title, line 2, after 'about', insert
'appointments to the House of Lords and'.

Dr. Fox: The new clauses and the amendment have three purposes. The first purpose is to move the debate on to the territory on which I believe the Committee would have preferred it to be from the start of the Bill's consideration—discussion of the role of the interim Chamber and, by implication, the Chamber thereafter.
It is extremely important that we consider the issue in the right order. We believe, as we have said from the outset of debate on the Bill, that first we must consider what Parliament as a whole should do, and what the relationship should be between Parliament and the Executive, the judiciary and Europe. When we have decided what the role of Parliament should be, we can decide what the balance between the two Chambers should be. When we have decided the balance between the two Chambers, and the relative powers and roles of the two Chambers, we can decide composition. That is a logical and sensible way to deal with our constitutional model.
The Government continue with their obsession with composition. The White Paper states in chapter 8, paragraph 1 on page 43:
Central to the future House of Lords is its composition.
The Government begin every argument with composition, rather than role. The purpose of the new clauses is to set out what we believe the role of the second Chamber should be and to put the debate on a firmer footing.
Secondly, we want to reaffirm our commitment to a second Chamber—not one that is weakened and supine, which effectively leads to single-Chamber government, but a strong and virile second Chamber that will stand up to an ever more mighty Executive, which increasingly has the House of Commons in its grip. At present, the Commons is largely the Prime Minister and Parliament. We need a Chamber that is willing to tackle the Government and engage in serious scrutiny, without the fear of the retribution of the Whips, which is felt to a

large extent in the House. That practice has existed for some time, but has worsened in recent years. It is an unhealthy development in a modern democracy.
Along with our commitment to a strong second Chamber, those in that Chamber must have a commitment to the workings of Parliament. If the number of Members of the upper House is to be reduced by the Government's actions through the Bill, it is essential that Members of that House are willing to play a full role in the workings of the House and the duties that will accompany membership.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have played an active role in the upper House and who have been willing, for the meagre sums that were mentioned in previous debates, to become engaged in long and arduous debate on behalf of the people of this country—a contribution made not least by many hereditary peers. I wish that, during the many stages of the debate, the Government had been a little more generous in spirit about the fantastic contributions made by many hereditary peers to the process of government. That includes hereditary peers on both sides of the House and on the Cross Benches.
We assume in the new clauses that, if the Weatherill amendment comes to pass, it will be via the Life Peerages Act 1958, and that is how any new life peers will be created. However, I am sure that I am wrong and that there is to be a new mechanism. No doubt the Government will want to clarify that as soon as possible.
The three new clauses are somewhat different, and we shall seek to divide the House on new clause 26, which we believe to be preferable. What do the new clauses suggest that the House should do? Clearly, it should examine Bills, draft statutory instruments, study European Community obligations, undertake the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and carry out the work of Select Committees.
I shall begin with Bills. We have had adequate reason in recent times to be grateful to the other place for its detailed scrutiny of legislation. That is a good signpost for the future. We will want Members of a reformed Chamber, whether the interim Chamber or beyond, who are willing to take an active interest in Bills and willing to send back to the House of Commons Bills that they believe to be mistaken and about which we should think again.
Let me give three examples. The Education (Student Loans) Bill was sent back to the House of Commons by the House of Lords, which believed that there was no excuse for treating English students differently from Scottish students or students in other parts of the European Union in respect of tuition fees. It was perfectly legitimate for that to be sent back. We want to keep in the interim House people of that calibre who are willing to take an interest in such a subject.
Peers were willing to send back the Crime and Disorder Bill, because they believed that the provisions on sexual offences contained insufficient protection for minors. The House of Commons thought about the matter again and dealt with it in a mature way. It was valuable to the process of politics in our country that the upper House was willing to do that.
I know that some Labour Members—I can see one, at least—believe in unicameral government. We need a second Chamber to ask us to think again. Few people can


believe that their wisdom is so great that no one else can ever have a better idea. In the White Paper, the Government say clearly that they are committed to a second Chamber, but that second Chamber must be worthwhile, not simply a roll-over-and-die second Chamber.
Perhaps the best most recent example of proper scrutiny was in relation to the closed-list system for the European elections. The upper House, which the Government say has no democratic legitimacy, was willing to stand up for the rights of voters when they were being diminished to give more power to politicians. The number of times that that legislation was sent back to the House was a good example of how an upper House, which is not democratically elected, can have a far better feel for democracy than an Executive who are overcome with the intoxicating effect of their majority.

Mr. Hoon: Can the hon. Gentleman give a single example of a Conservative Minister calling for a stronger second Chamber?

Dr. Fox: It is always easy for one Government to ask why a previous Government did not do something when they were in power. It was never regarded as a priority. But many Conservative Members have, for many years, believed that there was strong case for reform. In 1968, the Conservative party was at the forefront of negotiations on the House of Lords, and it was the House of Commons that prevented that reform.
I have two personal reasons for being in favour of the reform of both Houses of Parliament. As a Whip in the previous Government, I believed that the Whipping process was too strong. Through the Whips, the Executive had too much power. I still believe that to be true. Moreover, as a Minister in the Foreign Office, I never felt myself to be under great scrutiny by the House of Commons. There is a role, to which I shall come, for the greater scrutiny of Ministers.
One of the advantages of being in opposition is that we have experience of being in government, as well as the rather unpalatable task of being the Opposition. For Ministers to say that, because we did not do something when we were in power it cannot be important, is naive and disingenuous.

Mr. Fallon: Before my hon. Friend takes the process of personal self-flagellation too far, will he not totally ignore the role of previous Conservative Governments in strengthening the upper House? After all, it was a Conservative Government who introduced life peerages in the first place.

Dr. Fox: There were also the Select Committees, which gave hon. Members a greater say, to which I shall come. Notwithstanding that—I hoped to tread the path between self-righteousness and self-flagellation rather more delicately than I obviously did—experience gives us a chance to consider how the system operates. Many ex-Ministers feel that Parliament does not provide sufficient scrutiny. I know that some feel that more would not be a good idea anyway and would be rather inconvenient for Ministers, but, as we are in an era when

we seem to want to apply quality control to everyone else, it seems rather illogical to exempt Ministers of the Crown from the process. When any individual undergoes a period of scrutiny, it provides a better reason to perform well in any particular task.
The second area that we want to consider concerns draft statutory instruments, and that brings us to the question of secondary legislation. Most of our legislation now is secondary legislation. There is a strong argument that the structure of both Houses of Parliament was designed primarily to consider primary legislation. In a system where most of our legislation is now secondary, we must ask whether Parliament fulfils its most basic task, which is the scrutiny of legislation that affects the British people. Serious questions must be asked about the current mechanism for doing so.
There is a potentially dramatically increased role for an upper Chamber to consider secondary legislation. With the best will in the world, that growing volume of secondary legislation, not least that which comes from beyond our borders through the European Union, will require ever more scrutiny.
With regard to the United Kingdom's EU obligations, it is well accepted—I hope that it is on both sides of the House—that the European Communities Committee in the other place is possibly the most effective seriously scrutinising body that we have in this area. In my view, it does its work better than we in this House do. It has the advantage of having less input from the Patronage Secretary and her troops. It will take on an increasingly important role after devolution, when we will undoubtedly be involved in disputes about which part of our parliamentary structure should scrutinise certain aspects of European obligations.
5.15 pm
A good example of that came in our debates on the Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. We talked about quantitative distribution of international obligations and it became clear that the process of consultation between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament was rather unclear. Those European obligations will have to be scrutinised carefully in the upper House. The Government must take that into account as we move towards the interim Chamber, and the royal commission will have to take that seriously when it discusses a proper and fully operational stage 2.
The third matter under consideration in the new clauses is the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown. As long as members of the Executive sit in the legislature, and, therefore, as long as there are Ministers in the House of Lords, it is essential that they are scrutinised and questioned. That is especially important because Ministers in the other House are direct appointees of the Prime Minister, are not answerable to the electorate and have immense Executive power without ever being accountable to anyone but the Prime Minister.
As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would agree, that is, effectively, presidential government via the legislature. It is essential, therefore, that Ministers are brought to account. The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, and the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, are two good recent examples—I will not go into the politics of that because you would certainly rule me out of order, Sir Alan—


of why we need proper scrutiny of Ministers in the upper House. Without that, we would be failing in our duty to hold the Government properly to account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned the strengthening of the House by the Conservatives and identified the setting up of Select Committees as one of the ways in which previous Conservative Governments, when we had large majorities, set about making sure that there was a balance of power and that Parliament was able to have better control over the Executive. I pay handsome tribute to House of Lords Select Committees such as the Science and Technology Committee, which has already been mentioned by several hon. Members, and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Those Committees do tremendous work, boosting the reputation of Parliament and improving its workings.
Our Select Committees are one of the finest parts of the institutions of our Parliament, but there is a considerable way to go in strengthening them. There is an appetite in both Houses for Select Committees to be given more teeth to bring the Executive ever more to account. One of the more healthy trends in recent politics is that Select Committee Chairmen have been willing to bear their fangs a little more at the Executive, which is entirely understandable when they are treated with contempt by the Government. For example, the Government say that they will ignore any criticisms made of them by a Select Committee.
For Select Committees to work, the culture governing them must be working properly and the culture of the Government must be governed by a willingness to accept criticism when it is valid.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to mislead the House. I am sure, too, that he is aware of the doctrine on relationships between Ministers and Select Committees, as promulgated by the then Leader of the House, Lord Howe, in 1990. I do not have the words with me, but that doctrine makes it very plain that there is nothing out of the way in Ministers responding to criticism from Select Committees, whether in reports, comment from hon. Members or whatever. Indeed, that is part of the robust relationship between Ministers and Select Committees.

Dr. Fox: I absolutely accept that. What I find rather bizarre is the concept that Ministers should criticise Select Committee reports before they are published and should say that, if there is any criticism of the Government, they will not accept it. That is either utter stupidity or utter arrogance. I tend to think that it is the latter.
New clause 24 asks those who are Members of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage to make a declaration of willingness to scrutinise, once and for all. New clause 25 asks for that declaration at the beginning of every Session of Parliament and new clause 26 asks for a declaration once every Parliament. Of the three, new clause 26 strikes the better balance and its request is more reasonable.
The Government are obsessed with composition. We should move the debate on to firmer territory. If we are to make progress, and if we are to get anything like the consensus that the Government say in the White Paper that they seek, we must move the debate on to territory

on which we can make progress. We must get away from the Government's obsession with composition and deal with the role and functions of the other place. We are talking not about Mickey Mouse changes, but about a fundamental alteration to the way in which we are governed. The nation needs to know what those changes will be.
The new clauses set out in more detail than anything the Government have produced what an interim Chamber should be doing. I ask my colleagues to support the new clause in the Lobby.

Mr. Fallon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in finally bringing the Committee round to the subject that should have occupied us from the beginning—the functions of the Chamber that we seek to reform. I compliment him on his further ingenuity in offering the Committee three variations of the new clause. Like him, I much prefer new clause 26, which is slightly less bureaucratic than new clause 24, and avoids some unnecessary form filling.
It is essential that we begin with the assertion of exactly what the upper House is supposed to do. We would want to do that anyway if we sought to reform its composition, but we want to do it all the more because we see in the White Paper the first shadowy outline of the type of second Chamber that the Government would prefer. It is clear from chapter 7 of the White Paper that the Labour party would prefer a weaker House. The Government make that explicit. They talk about powers that might be used more frequently, but should be reduced. They suggest that the delaying power should be reduced, so that the power of the upper House to ask us to think again should not result in a Bill being delayed as long as it can be now. They even suggest that the ping-pong legislative procedure at the end of each Session should be curtailed, so that when the other place asks us to have second thoughts it will not have the leverage that it has at present when a Session of Parliament is expiring.

The Chairman: Order. I must help the hon. Member and the Committee. The debate on the new clause cannot be widened into a general debate about the functions of the House of Lords. The issue must be referred to only in the context of the job specification for life peers in the terms of the new clause. The hon. Member has started to go outside that issue, so I ask him respectfully to come back within the narrow definition that I have given.

Mr. Fallon: That guidance is extremely helpful to the Committee, Sir Alan. It is important that we ventilate this issue, because the role of the interim House will be significant when we eventually decide the role of the House after stage 2. There is no point inviting people to serve in the interim House unless we are clear about what they are there to do.
You have rightly ruled out, Sir Alan, any further discussion of what Labour Members think those who will serve in the interim House should do, but I am sure that that does not preclude us from stating clearly in the statute what they will do. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has laid out those functions very clearly. The new clause states that there should be
a willingness to participate in … the consideration of Bills".
That will be enormously important in the interim stage, not least because, if the Government want a weaker House on stage 2, those who participate in the interim House will


do so in the knowledge that only a small number of them will eventually graduate to membership of the House at stage 2. Unless we include in the Bill a clear definition of their role, they may feel cowed and unable to exercise even their present functions properly and without fear. Without such a definition, they may feel constrained: they may feel that they will miss out on the transition to stage 2.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the wording
shall indicate a willingness to participate
is strong enough, and is likely to be effective enough? It strikes me that it would be possible to make such a declaration, and do precious little afterwards.

Mr. Fallon: Later in my speech, I shall identify a number of respects in which I feel that the new clause is rather modest. As my right hon. Friend says, it is possible that the willingness indicated by the ticking of a box on a form at the beginning of a Session will be no guarantee of the number of sittings that the peer in question will attend. I know that, if there were a league table for attendance, my right hon. Friend would be in the premier division. He is an assiduous attender not just of this Committee, but of our sittings generally.
The drafting of the new clause may need to be examined, but I am sure that, if it is accepted, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring will deal with that on Report. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, he will tell us how "willingness" might be defined.
Let me return to the functions that we are discussing. Unless we reassure Members of the interim House that they have a proper role to play, they will inevitably be overwhelmed and cowed by the need to ensure that they survive to become Members of the stage 2 House. That applies regardless of whether they consider standing for election should all or even part of that House be elected. They will, of course, want to assure those who select them for election that they have been good boys, or good girls, in the interim House—that they have not been too aggressive towards the Executive. It will also apply if they wish to stand for membership of the nominated element of the stage 2 House. I believe that they will feel cowed by the knowledge that the Government want a weaker stage 2 House, and that they must not prejudice their membership of that House.

Dr. Fox: There is, perhaps, a more pressing reason for the functions of an interim Chamber to be detailed. The interim Chamber may, in effect, be stage 2. Page 29 of the White Paper states:
If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election.
Given the difficulty that has been experienced during this century in securing any form of consensus on reform, there is a good chance that the interim Chamber will become at least a semi-permanent Chamber, and there is, therefore, all the more reason to detail what it will do.

Mr. Fallon: That is another powerful argument in favour of the new clauses—so powerful, indeed, that I begin to puzzle why my hon. Friend did not include it in his speech.
I have studied these matters for some time—ever since the publication of the Home report in 1978—and I have never believed that any interim House could become the stage 2 House. I think it was Freud who, when told that the Russian revolution would begin a period of chaos that would eventually lead to a paradise on earth, replied, "I half believe it." I half believe that the Government were originally serious about reforming the House of Lords; but, as the process has been unveiled, along with the peculiarly cack-handed way in which they have approached it, it has become apparent that we are likely to be stuck with an interim House for a long time.

The Chairman: Order. Freud is dead, and I think that this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech should die with him, because it is well beyond the scope of the new clause.

Mr. Fallon: I apologise, Sir Alan. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring slightly misled me by drawing the Committee's attention again to paragraph 21 of the White Paper, where it is made clear that there is no binding commitment to legislation in the current Parliament. That is why it is important that the Committee should focus on the functions to be undertaken by the interim Chamber.

Dr. Starkey: As I understood it, the argument that the hon. Gentleman was advancing before the previous intervention was that Members of the upper House would be incredibly cowed by their need to be selected for either election or nomination. Does that not apply to all Members of the upper House, at least half of whom will he selected by the Conservative party? They will not all be selected by the Government.

Mr. Fallon: Those Members will be selected for the interim House, of course, but Members on both sides of the interim House will have to have an eye on their eventual selection for the stage 2 House. We all in the Committee anticipate that the Government will change at the next election, so exactly the same argument will apply to Members on each side of the interim House.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument? Does he feel that membership of the House of Lords should be permanent and not subject to review under any circumstances, with no elected component at any stage?

Mr. Fallon: That is not a proposition that I have advanced either today or at any previous sitting of the Committee. What is important is that those whom we now invite to be Members of the interim House should be clear as to what their functions are. That is why those functions are spelled out in the new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has hit the nail on the head. Consideration of Bills is obviously a primary function of the upper House. It is all the more necessary that it is exercised properly because of the number of Bills and the haste with which they are pushed through the House. The scrutiny process in the House of Commons has been curtailed by the use of timetable


motions at the drop of a hat. Therefore, it is all the more important that the interim House takes that legislative function seriously.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because I notice that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), has recently entered the Chamber. My hon. Friend's point is particularly relevant following an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, when the Prime Minister said that he did not believe in parliamentary scrutiny, and that he believed only in the mandate that his Government had to implement their business. That is precisely why the new clause is so important.

Mr. Fallon: You would rule me out of order, Mr. Martin, if I repeated a section from my Second Reading speech, but it was Baroness Jay who let the cat out of the bag. She said that the Bill was all about "modernising government". It is not. The new clause is about ensuring that a reformed second Chamber—there are many arguments for reforming it—has a clear statement as to the functions that it is supposed to perform. Better consideration of Bills, particularly legislation that is rushed through the House of Commons, must surely be one of those primary functions.
On the function in subsection (2)(b) of new clause 26, the study of European Community obligations, the ability of the House of Commons to consider properly the merits of those European Community obligations and the legislation that flows from them is restricted by the terms under which the original Select Committee was set up in 1973; that is why we had to revise our procedures and to set up the two new Standing Committees. Therefore, it is all the more important that we set out in statute the requirement that life peers should participate in the study of European Community obligations.
The third function, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, will be important work for the upper House. The Government have said that, in the second stage House, Ministers might not even have to be Members. They have said that it would be difficult if they were not, but they have not ruled it out. Perhaps there is some fancy continental proposal floating around that Ministers might not need to be a Member of either House. In fact, we have seen an example of that already—Lord Macdonald seems to have floated around in the Government over the past few months without being a Member of either House. Perhaps Ministers from Whitehall might only have to turn up and stand at the Bar of the other place. It is essential—

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need to scrutinise the Ministers in the other place, given the extremely controversial nature of some of them at present?

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend may be leading me on to political ground, which may be a little outside the scope of the Committee.
What we can say about the Ministers who serve the Crown in another place is that they have not sought election or endorsement. Indeed, many of them have not stood for any sort of public office or even taken the trouble to be a member of the political party that has

appointed them. It is all the more important that those unelected crony Ministers should be properly scrutinised. That is why I am delighted to see that function spelt out in subsection (2)(c).
On subsection (2)(d), I am not the first member of the Committee to draw attention to the excellent work of the Select Committees of the Upper House, whether in scrutinising European legislation or scrutinising science and technology. By the way in which they have carried out their work, the noble Lords who serve on those Committees have built a strong reputation for them, both in Brussels and in Whitehall. Their reports are widely respected. It is part of the tradition of the House and we want to see the transfer of the knowledge and experience that have been built up.
When I spoke on the previous group of amendments, I was told that the reason for keeping the Privileges Committee, even though it would be adjudicating on claims that have nothing to do with the current House, is that it has great tradition and has built up a great body of knowledge. That is to be kept for a function that it is no longer necessary for it to discharge, but the Government are happy to see that retained simply because the expertise built up is so great. If that applies to the handling of the Ampthill baby or the various Moynihan babies, it certainly applies to the handling of European legislation.
I am delighted that my hon. Friends have tabled this new clause and enabled the Committee to focus for the first time on the functions that the reformed House will exercise. It has enabled us to bring out the threat to the second Chamber that lies in almost every paragraph of chapter 7 of the White Paper. If we accept the new clause, it will give some comfort to those whom we are inviting at very little cost—as we discovered under an earlier group of amendments—to serve us. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Mr. Garnier: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for introducing the new clause and for reminding the Committee of our party's support for the need for a discussion about the role of the interim Chamber and our commitment to a second Chamber. We all know that there is no certainty about the length of time that the second Chamber will last in its interim form. I believe that I am right in saying that, if there are members of the Committee who want a unicameral legislative system, they are to be found on the Labour Benches, not the Conservative Benches. It may well be that not many Labour Members desire a unicameral system.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Garnier: I am corrected by the Leader of the House. I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford is in favour of a unicameral legislative system. Be that as it may, he is very much in the minority. As he is not in the Chamber, he should be able on another occasion to explain the reasons for his preference.
I fully endorse the need for a second Chamber, and for a strongly equipped second Chamber that will perform all the functions stated in new clause 24. I shall deal with those duties in a moment. First, however, I have a couple of queries, with which my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) or the Minister may be able to deal.
We should examine the functions of the interim second Chamber in the light of the constitutional disposition that is shortly to come into effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring pointed out, a new Parliament in Scotland and Assemblies in Wales and in Northern Ireland have been established. The Committee would be far better employed working out the proper relationship of the constituent parts of the Union, their relationship to the United Kingdom Parliament and the governmental systems of the European Union that have some effect on our deliberations before we consider the composition of the membership of the second Chamber—which, as my hon. Friend quite correctly said, seems to be the Government's primary concern.
The Government have yet to tell us what they believe is the proper relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, or the relationship of the Scottish Parliament, the Assembly of Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament. We have yet to hear from the Government what they believe is the proper place of the United Kingdom Parliament in the United Kingdom constitution.
The Government have yet to tell us also what they want the second Chamber to do, in either its interim form or its final form, whenever that may come. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring that we need a strong second Chamber that is able to hold the Executive to account. Under our current constitutional arrangements, the Government may appoint Ministers from both Houses, and both Houses are able to question Ministers. Of course, whether they receive answers is another matter.
The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department and I have had our little disagreements about his ability to answer questions and to allow himself to be held to account. Perhaps, when attempts were made to hold the Government to account, he would be encouraged to answer questions more satisfactorily if he were not only available to be cross-questioned in this Chamber and in the Select Committees of the House but required occasionally to attend the second Chamber to answer questions. Perhaps future constitutional academics, and we politicians, will have to consider that matter.
Equally, perhaps better scrutiny of Government could be achieved if Ministers who are appointed by the Prime Minister to the other place are available for scrutiny also in this place.

Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be making those points in a submission to the royal commission—which is considering precisely those issues on the role and functions of the second Chamber? Is he not pre-empting that consideration?

Mr. Garnier: This is the House of Commons. One reason why I was sent to this place by my constituents was to discuss Government legislation. We are here to discuss the Bill, which, sadly—with some honourable exceptions—most Labour Back Benchers have not condescended to come and support with their words.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the comment of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes,

South—West (Dr. Starkey) betrays the fundamental disposition of Labour Members to assume that they do not need to worry about the functions of the interim Chamber? They want to leave all that to the White Paper, but the long-term plans may never come about.

Mr. Garnier: I was thinking in Committee yesterday evening that it seemed to many Labour Back Benchers that the White Paper, not the Bill, was the legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: Has it not struck the hon. and learned Gentleman or the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was smart enough to spot that the Government do not propose any change to the functions or power of the interim House?

Mr. Garnier: If that is the case, more's the pity. The current second Chamber is diffident about using its powers to scrutinise and amend Government legislation. That has been the case under this Government and under the previous Conservative Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher.

Mr. Stunell: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an interesting point. What is his evaluation of whether the upper House was more inclined to give serious scrutiny to Conservative legislation or to the legislation of the current Government?

Mr. Garnier: I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but many Conservative Bills were given serious scrutiny by the House of Lords. The rights and remedies available to the House of Lords under the constitution and the precedents and traditions of our country are not sufficiently used for fear of offending the elected House. There is nothing wrong with that, because we are the elected Members and the Labour party has a majority in this House, by a huge chalk. It is permissible for the House of Lords to restrain itself. However, if we are revisiting the workings of our constitution, are we not entitled to invite the Committee to apply its mind to the proper functions of the second Chamber in its interim form and in its permanent form, if there is to be one? The proposals in the new clauses on the job specification of the Members of the second House are worthy of consideration.

Mr. George Stevenson: I have listened with great interest to many speeches, particularly that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The new clauses talk about a declaration of a willingness to serve. What criteria would he use to judge whether that willingness had been made a reality? Does he envisage a penalty being imposed on those who did not make such a declaration?

Mr. Garnier: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who must have very good eyesight. That is the next point in my notes. I said at the start of my speech that I wanted to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring two points of concern about shortcomings in new clause 26, which I am otherwise happy to support.
My first concern was the lack of sanctions for failure. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) asked what sanctions or penalties would


be available to the second Chamber if a Member of that House, having made a declaration to the effect that he was willing to serve under the terms of the new clause, failed to abide by that declaration. Would it be open to the second Chamber to expel him? Would it be open to the Government—or the Prime Minister who had recommended to Her Majesty that the Member be granted a life peerage to sit in the House—to withdraw the life peerage? Those matters need to be considered. It would have been useful for the Committee to hear more about the matter, but that does not vitiate the good sense of the thrust of the new clause.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the first question in my previous intervention? What criteria does he envisage being established to determine whether the call for a declaration of a willingness to serve has been made into a reality?

Mr. Garnier: We are talking about a hypothetical situation.

Mr. Stevenson: No, we are not.

Mr. Garnier: If the hon. Gentleman will have the patience to listen to the answer to his fair question, he will see that we are talking about a hypothetical position, because the measure is not yet in effect. One would have to look at the new clause criteria and see whether any given Member of the second House had complied with the willingness declaration. Had he or she given sufficient attention to the workings of the second Chamber in relation to the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments? Had he or she given sufficient attention and time to the study of the European Community obligations of the UK, the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown and the work of Select Committees? Many things are easier to recognise than to define and, in the event of a Member of the second Chamber failing to come up to scratch in relation to the declaration of willingness, the other place would find mechanisms for bringing him or her to book.
My complaint is that those mechanisms are not spelled out in the new clause. Although the new clause in itself is not to be undermined on that basis, it would have been a better new clause if the details had been included.

Mr. Brady: Does my hon. and learned Friend consider that, even without sanctions, the inclusion of the new clause would have the benefit of dealing with a problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)—that there would be a premium on the silent Member of the interim Chamber who might wish to be appointed to a subsequent Chamber? The new clause would make it difficult for a Government to choose the Members who had done and said nothing to go on and serve in any ultimate Chamber.

Mr. Garnier: I take my hon. Friend's point, which he made more eloquently than I might have.

Mr. Andrew Love: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he felt that the new clause had a problem, in that it failed to include any sanctions. Types of sanction have been suggested, but the hon. and learned

Gentleman has not stated any view on them. Before you leave the issue, you should give your wisdom to the Chamber in terms of appropriate sanctions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I always deliver wisdom to the Chamber.

Mr. Garnier: You have done so again, Mr. Martin.
I find new clause 26 generally acceptable, but it has one or two deficiencies. There is an omission regarding the Law Lords—the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—who at present are life peers and Members of the other place, and are entitled to vote and speak on matters outside their remit as judges of the highest court in the land. I am marginally concerned that the requirement to declare a willingness to be involved in the matters listed in subsection (4)(a), (b), (c) and (d) may in some way affect the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. and learned Friend is making a serious point. I hope that he will accept that it was no part of our intention to suggest that there should be any such prejudice to the Law Lords' neutrality. Of course, we assume that the Standing Orders would reflect that, in defining such participation by the Law Lords as neutral.

Mr. Garnier: I am pleased to have that assurance. I am not surprised, because, if our party stands for anything, it stands for the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. Rammell: I was fascinated to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman lauding the Conservative party's commitment to the independence of the judiciary. Is that his party's view on General's Pinochet's case, which is being adjudicated in the other place?

Mr. Garnier: I will not answer that question. That was an unworthy intervention. In expecting me to answer, the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Committee should have some role in influencing the Judicial Committee in reaching its decision in the extradition case. He will have to await the judgment of the other place. I am not prepared to express an opinion about that matter in this forum.
There is an unmet need to define the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament and the new devolved bodies in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I want to be sure that the Judicial Committee of the other place, or that body in its other guise as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will be entitled to carry out its work in arbitrating differences between, for example, the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament.
We must anticipate that there will be constitutional tensions between the devolved bodies and the United Kingdom Parliament. Equally, there are already tensions between this place and the European Parliament and the constitutional arrangements of the European Union. There may also be tensions between us and London's new mayor and assembly, but I am not so worried about that.
We need an arrangement that protects the ability of the Judicial Committee to arbitrate on such matters. A jurisdiction may grow up that provides a body of law; the independent judiciary and the constitutional court


which may develop should be uninfluenced and uninhibited by the need for declarations such as those in the new clauses.

Mr. Letwin: Given that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is specifically given the role of adjudicating devolution issues, we have taken it as axiomatic that, in serving on that Committee, their lordships would be acting not as Members of the House of Lords but as members of that Committee, and hence wholly neutral.

6 pm

Mr. Garnier: The only problem with that point is that they will in fact be Members of the House of Lords. We may need to give that aspect of the new clauses further consideration. It may be that we shall be assisted in that by the other place, when it considers this aspect of the Bill.
It is important that we should carefully consider the current constitutional role of the other place and what we hope its future constitutional role will be in dealing with the legal matters to which I adverted. In the past, the House of Lords has performed a vital role as an arbitrator between the justice systems of the Commonwealth and the citizens of its states, and I hope that it will continue to perform that role in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Under the previous Government, I undertook a mission on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department to visit several of the jurisdictions in the Caribbean.

Mr. Forth: Lucky you.

Mr. Taylor: It ill lies in the mouth of my right hon. Friend to begrudge me a trip to the Caribbean, which was non-stop hard work. I never had a moment's relaxation, as I visited all the jurisdictions in the eastern Caribbean—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have slackened the reins somewhat, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has talked about the Law Lords, but we must get back to the new clauses, which are more narrow than the subject that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is addressing.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise to the Committee, Mr. Martin, but I was provoked.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is intervening, it is a rather long intervention, and I wish to see the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) back on his feet.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Garnier: You want me back on my feet, Mr. Martin, and I shall obey you. Before very long, I shall get back to my seat, but I wish to express my genuine support for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring. I do not yet have a firm view about which new clause is better, and whether the declaration should be of a sessional length, a

parliamentary length or for life, but I accept the arguments of hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) about the need for declarations to be made. I trust that the Committee will guide me further on the length of time for which they should be made.
I run the risk of crossing you, Mr. Martin, but, contrary to your ruling a moment ago, I think that the role of all Members of the interim House of Lords, in all their guises as legislators and judges, must be considered under new clause 26. On that basis, and having expressed some of my concerns in a gentle, acceptable and interesting way—

Mr. Forth: Two out of three.

Mr. Garnier: I am always so grateful to my right hon. Friend—I think. I shall resume my seat and invite other members of the Committee to comment on what I have said.

Mr. Stevenson: I, too, have suffered provocation. I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but I feel that I must. I have listened to the contributions from Opposition Members and read the new clauses, and one might be tempted to think that they had some superficial attraction. The new clauses seek first to identify what the role of the interim Chamber might be. I repeat that, as I listened to Conservative Members, I felt a certain attraction towards that objective. The second objective is to try to ensure that, whoever might be the Members of the interim second Chamber, there is a written declaration that they are willing to participate in the activities set out in the new clauses.
However, as the debate continued, that superficial attraction turned into a proverbial Irish mist. The activities referred to in the new clauses are important. How do we define them? What are they? Should we not take this opportunity to define them so that there is no risk of the interim second Chamber not knowing what it is about? I listened to the ingenious arguments put forward—indeed, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was congratulated by his hon. Friends on the ingenious way in which he had used the new clauses to introduce that important element of definition—but, on at least one occasion, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office intervened to point out that it is not the Government's intention to change the functions currently exercised in the second Chamber. I thought that that was pretty clear.

Mr. Tyrie: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, by changing the composition of the Chamber, he changes the effectiveness with which the Chamber may exercise those functions? That is the crucial element in the argument that seems to have eluded so many Labour Members, but is so clear to Conservative Members.

Mr. Stevenson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Having attended most of the debates, I have listened to the arguments ad nauseam. By the way, I note the disappearance from the Chamber of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—or is he the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood? No, he was kicked out of that seat.
I acknowledge the argument about effectiveness, but these new clauses talk not about effectiveness, but about willingness; we are attempting to define the powers


and responsibilities of the interim second Chamber. I acknowledge that there are arguments about how effectively those powers might be exercised in terms of what the interim second Chamber will be, and those arguments have been put forward by many right hon. and hon. Members. On the parts of the new clauses that attempt to identify those responsibilities, I am certain that that matter is important and equally certain that my hon. Friend the Minister directly answered the concerns that were expressed. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will also refer to the matter.
When I referred earlier to the declaration of willingness, I noticed that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) nodded, so I assume that he supports that point. However, that aspect of the new clauses is flawed. In an intervention on the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I asked what criteria would be used to determine whether that willingness was a reality. He was unable to answer, but called in aid the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who gave a definition that I thought he had plucked out of the air. It is my assertion that, if we were to ask the 30 or 40 hon. Members in the Committee for a definition, we should hear 30 or 40 different definitions.
The new clauses are fundamentally flawed. It is no good talking about hypotheses, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough did in answer to my intervention. We are talking not about hypotheses, but about new clauses which, if accepted, would appear in the Bill.
What would be a criterion for demonstrating willingness? Would it be a Member's attendance record? Perhaps a Member would be deemed to have shown willingness if he attended a Scrutiny Committee meeting and listened to the discussion. Sometimes one contributes as much by listening as by speaking—I would remind the hon. Member for Aldershot of that if he were present, but he is not. How would one judge those criteria? Would Members have to produce sick notes from their GPs? Would they have to provide explanations such as, "I'm sorry that I could not attend, but I was sick" and "I had a family crisis"? The whole area is a minefield.
I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Woodspring that it would be impossible to employ criteria to determine whether a declaration of willingness was real. I challenge the hon. Member for West Dorset—if he intends to contribute again to the discussion—to spell out what those criteria would be. I shall listen with great interest as I contend that that is an impossible task.
If it were possible to arrive at criteria, we would have to consider what penalties might be imposed if no willingness were indicated—as it says in new clause 26. It is not just a matter of willingness, but an indication of willingness. I do not know what that means. I understand what "willingness" and "indicate" mean, but I am not sure what indicative willingness is. I challenge Opposition Members to clarify that point. It is not a hypothetical matter: if the new clauses are passed, they will go into the Bill. We are dealing with reality.
The new clauses seek to do two things to which I referred earlier. First, they seek to define the responsibilities of the other Chamber. My hon. Friend the Minister answered that point and said that there would be no changes. Therefore, that part of the new clauses is not required. Secondly, the new clauses seek to

introduce a declaration or indication of willingness. That is simply impractical and impossible and would not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. That point has not yet been clarified by the Opposition. They have not explained what criteria would be used to determine whether real willingness had been shown or what penalties might be imposed if it was not.
New clauses that appeared to be superficially attractive have proved to be nothing but political posturing. I shall listen carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I hope that the Government will oppose the new clauses. If that is the Government's intention, I shall certainly pass through the Lobby with enthusiasm.

Mr. Forth: I rather agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will have quite a job to persuade me and, perhaps, other hon. Members of the viability of the new clauses. I do not question the importance of the subject that has been raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is an experienced Committee Chairman and he knows that it is not always sufficient for the Government to criticise Opposition amendments for their technical content. It is possible for the Government, as a matter of good will, to say, "We accept the substance, but would like the amendment to be redrafted." In the ministerial response, I shall look for an indication of how Ministers believe that the substance of the new clauses can properly be addressed. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, South, I am worried about the ability to translate words such as "participate" into reality.
6.15 pm
By analogy, let us consider this House. Can we imagine setting out to judge Members on participation—to say nothing of penalties? It is a little easier to deal with the point about penalties. This House has a combination of party discipline and the Whips, the Government's power of patronage, the huge attraction of becoming an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the ultimate sanction of party selection and the electorate. None of those is available in the other place—at least until my objective of a wholly elected upper Chamber is realised. The point about participation will be rather difficult to get a grip of.
Even if, under the terms of the new clauses, people said, "Yes, I will be a working peer"—I think that that is the general objective—and even if the declaration is made in good faith, how will a judgment be made on whether that declaration will be fulfilled? It does not matter which paragraph of the new clauses we consider. As the hon. Member for Stoke—on—Trent, South said, how are we to account for assiduous attendance in a debate such as this if one has not spoken? Would we have to bob up and down, intervening constantly, just to show that we had been present? Would a record be kept of those who sat on the Benches, as happens in the other place so that Members may qualify for their daily allowance? Let us consider the even more difficult question of participation in
the study of European Community obligations".
It would be very difficult to get any definitive grip on such matters.
Although I fully support the thrust of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, he has his work cut out if he is to persuade me—and, obviously, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—that the new clauses can work, and that we can find a way in which to measure and monitor such matters, especially participation. We would have to deal with penalties, too. If we found ways of judging, and Members were found wanting, what would happen? What would happen if I signed a declaration and were made a Member of an interim House, but was judged not to have participated adequately?

Mr. Fallon: The following might be one test of participation. Would my right hon. Friend say that he had been participating in a debate on these new clauses if he were able to vote for them? Is he participating in this Committee to that extent?

Mr. Forth: That raises a series of issues, which my hon. Friend is right to raise. Is the mere act of voting a sufficient indication of participation to satisfy the criteria?
I do not want to labour the point; I wanted to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, which were worth reinforcing, so that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will—I hope—seek to satisfy the Committee on them before we vote. I hope that he can, because I want to support the new clause. However, I shall need further persuading before being able to do so.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) opened the debate with an echo of our Second Reading debate in which, having accused the Government of wanting to kick the reform of stage 2 into the long grass, he came up with a long list of things that should have been considered before we did anything at all, which would probably have taken at least 10 years. In tonight's debate, he again said that he thought that this process should have begun with careful consideration, from first principles, of the role of Parliament. He then said that, having given the matter some such consideration, the Opposition strongly believed that there should indeed be a second Chamber.
In that, as in several other matters, there is not much dispute between hon. Members on opposite sides of the Chamber. Much earlier in our debates on the subject, I understood an hon. Member—I shall have to rely on Hansard to bring his proper description—to say in an intervention that he was in principle a unicameralist.

Mr. Garnier: I believe that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right, and I am grateful to him. Many Labour Members have said that they are unicameralists, but the Government are not making that case any more than the Opposition are doing so. We therefore begin with common ground in that all or most of us take the view that, to perform its role properly, Parliament needs not only this Chamber, but a second Chamber.
It is slightly sad that we then entered more contentious territory, with the ritual—usually ill-founded—denunciations of the Government, based on dubious statistics or none. However, it would be wise not to detain the Committee on that subject, because it was not germane to the debate; I even wondered whether the denunciations had been put in to flesh out a not very long contribution.
In the course of that ritual denunciation, the hon. Member for Woodspring asserted that the Government should have focused from the outset not on the composition of a second Chamber, but on its role and functions. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) pointed out that, throughout the decades-long history of discussions on reform of the House of Lords, when proposals were made to reform its role or powers, it was suggested that the composition should be reformed first—and when proposals were made to reform the composition, it was said that we should start with its role and functions, so it seems impossible to satisfy those who are nervous about all reform. We then moved on to the issue of the basic points made—or purported to be made—in the new clauses and the amendment, all of which, as the hon. Member for Woodspring identified, have the same theme, although in slightly different contexts.
Most of us would not disagree with much of what has been said in the debate. The Government are as anxious as Conservative Members to have an effective transitional House and to have a second Chamber of genuine working peers, and I do not believe that anything that has been said from the Labour Benches in these debates or on any other occasion could in any way suggest that the Government do not want an effective second Chamber.
I now make a confession to the Committee that I thought never to make, which may not fall very pleasantly on the ears of the hon. Member for Woodspring. For the first time in my life, I agreed with most of what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said. I hope that I do not hurt the right hon. Gentleman's feelings too much by saying so, but I entirely concur with his argument, which I fear is that, however unexceptionable may be some of the basic points made in the context of these new clauses, they are pointless because they are completely ineffectual.

Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She speaks about an active second Chamber. As guidance to the Committee, can she say whether the Government believe that such a Chamber should be less powerful than the current one, as powerful as the current one, or have more powers than the current second Chamber?

Mrs. Beckett: I think that I referred to an effective second Chamber—although the hon. Gentleman may be right, I may have used the word "active" as well. I do not quarrel with it.
The current situation is anomalous in so many ways that it would take a tedious length of time to delineate them. The anomaly rests not only in the composition, but in the fact that the House of Lords, as it is constituted, has a panoply of powers, which it feels impelled to obey a self-denying ordinance not to exercise. All that seems potentially worthy of reform.
The precise nature of those reforms, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter for another day and for another stage of discussion of these matters. I do not


propose to be diverted into them now, even if you allowed me to do so, Mr. Martin, and I am pretty confident that you would not.

Mr. Tyrie: Does the right hon. Lady think that the interim House is more likely to be able to exercise the powers in respect of which she says that peers are exercising a self-denying ordinance, or less likely to exercise those powers than the present Chamber? Specifically, does she think that the introduction of more than 100 new Labour peers at four times the average annual rate of appointment this century is likely to lead that Chamber to be more effective in independent scrutiny of the Government, or less?

Mrs. Beckett: Yet again, we have an example of the nonsense talked by Opposition Members about these matters, although the hon. Gentleman strays even further than most of the debate has done. I do not envisage the transitional Chamber behaving in any particularly different way from the way in which the second Chamber behaves now.
The hon. Gentleman's second point is ludicrous. First, I am sure that as he has clearly spent some time studying these matters, he is extremely conscious of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has created a number of new peers, only half of whom were creations of our party. The rest were creations on behalf of other parties. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman must be equally aware that, if there were a proposal to make a large number of creations, it would be only in an attempt to remedy the gross imbalance created by decades of Conservative Prime Ministers creating twice as many peers from their own party as from our party, despite their enormous in-built majority among hereditary peers.

Mr. Tyrie: rose—

Mrs. Beckett: I do not intend to stray much longer on this point, and I am not sure that you will let us do this, Mr. Martin, but I shall give way again.

Mr. Tyrie: What the right hon. Lady says is factually incorrect. Since the introduction of life peers in 1958, no Prime Minister has ever appointed more than half from his own side. It has always been less than half. The present Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister ever to appoint more than half. The current rate is 53 per cent. Is that not a gross breach of all precedent in the appointment of life peers?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the facts, and I do not know why he is twisting about to deny them. Of the creations that have been made, 40 to 48 per cent. were creations of his party, and about half that for our party, despite the fact that the Conservatives already have an enormous in-built majority among the hereditary peers.
I am conscious of the demands on the Chamber and of the other brief points that I want to make. The provisions in the new clauses are not unworthy, but it would be pretty pointless to put them into effect as legislation because they are ineffectual and they raise as many questions as they answer.
How is the willingness of a Member to serve to be defined? The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) raised that matter. There is no mechanism to check

whether the declaration is genuine or just a passport to membership. How would the required standard of involvement be judged on an objective basis? There is nothing in the new clause about that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said in an intervention and in his remarks, there is in the new clause no sanction for failing to meet that standard, even if one could be devised. Although not unworthy, the clause adds nothing to the Bill.
The key point that we are anxious always to bear in mind is that, with the removal of the hereditary peers, the House of Lords will become a more workmanlike place. That is right and proper. It is an aim that we all share. All the aspects of work singled out in the new clause are perfectly worthy in themselves. We recognised the importance of that work in our White Paper. Nothing in our proposals for the transitional House or for the longer term suggests that the Government envisage that those will not continue to be functions fit for the second Chamber to carry out.
6.30 pm
I remind both the hon. Member for Sevenoaks and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) that the Government do not propose to change the way in which matters are handled. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked how we could reflect the substance of the new clause. With respect for the worthy motives that might have lain behind tabling it, we cannot reflect its substance because, to be honest, it does not have any.
I am conscious of the fact that Conservative Members are strongly of the view that unnecessary material should not be put on the statute book. It is a view that I share, and that is why I advise the Committee, should the Opposition press the matter to a Division, to reject the new clause.

Mr. Letwin: I assure the Leader of the House that we shall push new clause 26 to a vote in due course.
The background to this debate, one of the best that we have had in Committee, is clear, and has become clearer during the Committee stage. First, the Bill creates a second Chamber that poses as interim. By denying Opposition amendments and new clauses, the Government have made it perfectly clear, and in confirming their refusal to produce a timetable made it clearer yet, that they have no idea how long that Chamber will last, and that, for all they know or care, it could be permanent.
Secondly, it has become clear during our debates that there are no measures in the Bill and nothing in the Government's plans to increase the ability of the second House, which the Bill re-creates, to check the Executive, despite the fact that the Government have been wholly unable and unwilling to deny that the greatest problem of our constitution today is the Executive's overwhelming power.
Thirdly, and most importantly, throughout our debates, we have made it ever more clear that, by removing half the working Members of the other place, the Bill goes a long way towards weakening rather than strengthening the second Chamber. It weakens not its official role, but its ability to fulfil that role in reality. It makes it consciously and intentionally a less effective Chamber.
New clause 9 on salaries and expenses offered the Government another chance to do something to remedy the deficiency that they have brought about by enabling their lordships, reduced in numbers as they will be, to do something about the matter by attending the Chamber more frequently, but the Government rejected that too.

Mrs. Beckett: One reason why none of those points was answered in the debate is that none was germane to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is winding up the previous debates that we have already had.

Mr. Letwin: With respect to the right hon. Lady, they are highly germane because they form the background to the debate.
The debate on new clause 24 and its accompanying new clauses was the Government's final test, which Ministers and Labour Members have fundamentally and utterly failed.

Mr. Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not, because I am conscious of the time. I shall give way later if I can.
My hon. Friends, who have made many excellent contributions to the debate, have properly castigated their Front-Bench spokesmen for the weakness of the new clauses. They have pointed out that they are less than perfect. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), perhaps most notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) have all asked why the new clauses did not have more teeth. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made the same point.
We accept that the new clauses are by no means as strong as they might have been, but it is extraordinary that the Leader of the House should argue that it is not proper to have this modest, slight addition to the Bill on the grounds that it is incomplete and imperfect. If incompleteness and imperfection were guarantees of not entering law, and a guarantee that the Government would not wish something to enter the law, the Bill would never have come anywhere near the House. The Government, pre-eminently in Britain's history, are engaged in constitutional reform which, on their own admission, is incomplete and imperfect.
It is extraordinary that the right hon. Lady can summon up the gall to come to the Dispatch Box and argue that, with all the resources at her disposal, she is unable to improve on new clauses which she herself says—I fear that I must doubt the sincerity of her utterance—are unobjectionable in their aims. If they are unobjectionable in their aims, but imperfect in their results and effects, she could, perfectly easily, have introduced better versions. In the spirit of consensus, which the White Paper so magnificently offers, we would of course have accepted such additions to our proposals, but this afternoon and this evening—in particular, during the past hour and a half or two hours of this debate—the Government have not shown the slightest intention of establishing an interim Chamber that will work better than the current Chamber.
We said on Second Reading that the Government's intention was to create a twin poodle. They have poodlised this House; they intend to have a second poodle across the way. If they did not so intend, the last thing that they would have done is reject out of hand modest new clauses that sought purely to create a token—a token that would ensure at least that people were not introduced to their lordships' House merely as a matter of honour.
We sought solely an undertaking from the Government—and an undertaking from the people who will sit in the House of Lords—that the people whom they appoint will seek to fulfil a serious role in a serious Chamber, notwithstanding the fact that the number of working peers will have been halved without the slightest amendment to their conditions, which would have enabled them to go on fulfilling the role. That is a modest requirement. By rejecting it, the Government have amply demonstrated their bad faith in introducing a Bill that does nothing to increase the effective check on the Executive and much to belittle it.
I hope that Conservative Members will come willingly into the Lobby to support those points, notwithstanding the fact that, if we or the Government had been so minded, the new clauses could have been greatly strengthened. In this instance, the best is very much the enemy of the good. We shall vote to support the good, because that is much better than what the Government have been able to produce.

Dr. Fox: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26

CRITERIA FOR CONFERMENT OF LIFE PEERAGE (No. 3)

'(1) A person shall not be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 unless he has first declared a willingness to serve as a member of the House of Lords.
(2) Any such declaration shall be ineffective at the end of the Parliament in which it is made.
(3) Subsection (2) shall not prevent a further declaration being made at any time.
(4) The declaration shall indicate a willingness to participate in—

(a) the consideration of Bills and draft statutory instruments,
(b) the study of European Community obligations of the United Kingdom,
(c) the scrutiny of Ministers of the Crown, and
(d) the work of select committees.'.—[Dr. Fox.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 104, Noes 288.

Division No. 90]
[6.38 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brady, Graham


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Burns, Simon


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Body, Sir Richard
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Chope, Christopher






Clappison, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Major, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paterson, Owen


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Gale, Roger
Randall, John


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gill, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
St Aubyn, Nick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trend, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Walter, Robert


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wardle, Charles


Jenkin, Bernard
Waterson, Nigel


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John



Wilkinson, John


Key, Robert
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Woodward, Shaun


Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Letwin, Oliver
Sir David Madel.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blackman, Liz


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Borrow, David


Allan, Richard
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Buck, Ms Karen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Burstow, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atkins, Charlotte
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Austin, John
Caborn, Richard


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Caplin, Ivor


Beard, Nigel
Casale, Roger


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caton, Martin


Begg, Miss Anne
Cawsey, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clapham, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Best, Harold
Clelland, David


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon





Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cox, Tom
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cummings, John



Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dalyell, Tam
Keeble, Ms Sally


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Darvill, Keith
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kidney, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dawson, Hilton
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Denham, John
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dismore, Andrew
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Donohoe, Brian H
Laxton, Bob


Doran, Frank
Lepper, David


Dowd, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Drew, David
Levitt, Tom


Drown, Ms Julia
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Edwards, Huw
Lock, David


Efford, Clive
Love, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McAllion, John


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCabe, Steve


Fearn, Ronnie
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flint, Caroline
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Flynn, Paul
McIsaac, Shona


Follett, Barbara
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNulty, Tony


Galloway, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Gardiner, Barry
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Maxton, John


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grogan, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Miller, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moore, Michael


Harvey, Nick
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mountford, Kali


Healey, John
Mullin, Chris


Hepburn, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hesford, Stephen
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoey, Kate
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hopkins, Kelvin
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pendry, Tom






Perham, Ms Linda
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pickthall, Colin
Steinberg, Gerry


Pike, Peter L
Stevenson, George


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pollard, Kerry
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pond, Chris
Stott, Roger


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stunell, Andrew


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rapson, Syd
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Todd, Mark


Rooker, Jeff
Touhig, Don


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Truswell, Paul


Rowlands Ted
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Salter, Martin
Walley, MS Joan


Sawford, Phil
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watts, David


Shaw, Jonathan
White, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shipley, Ms Debra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Willis, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winnick, David



Wise, Audrey


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Mike Hall and


Spellar, John
Mr. David Hanson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading tomorrow.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you seen the reply of the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), in which the Foreign Secretary admits that he was sent and saw the report on human rights of the Foreign Affairs Committee before it was published, and that a draft of the Committee's report on enlargement, which has still not been published, was sent to his office in January and seen by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), but not by him because—I quote from his answer—it "was not controversial"?
Should not the Foreign Secretary be summoned to the House to make a statement about that further astonishing example of his and the Government's contempt for Parliament? Will Madam Speaker widen the scope of her letter of 1 March to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges to include those latest examples of the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Those are matters for the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. [Interruption.]

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The last thing that I need is for hon. Members to shout. I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will not pursue this matter. I have ruled that the question of these leaks is a matter for the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is within that Committee's domain.

Mr. Tom King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When this matter arose on a previous occasion, I asked Madam Speaker to ensure that it would be looked into so that we could have a ruling about whether it is thought to be proper conduct for a Minister to receive, hold and not return, without apology, a Select Committee report. Madam Speaker gave a prompt answer, for which I am grateful, to say that this was—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: May I complete this point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has already made clear her feelings on the matter. It is now before the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I have said that this is a matter for the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House if I explain the decision that has just been taken in the Foreign Affairs Committee. As the House will know, there was a special report of that Committee which will, as I understand it, pass automatically to the Standards and Privileges Committee.


It is that Committee's report which will ultimately be debatable in the Chamber. On the latest developments, the Foreign Affairs Committee has today started the procedure which is set out clearly on page 670 of "Erskine May". That procedure will now be under way and, as you have already ruled, the matter is still with the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is nothing more to add.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely a matter of the honourable or dishonourable conduct of Members of the House and the question of the integrity or otherwise of our Select Committee system must be matters of concern to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has an established procedure for dealing with matters of this sort. I have described that procedure and I can say no more.
I may have interrupted the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I will allow him to complete his point of order.

Mr. King: My point was not specifically about the Foreign Affairs Committee, but deals with the wider issue of Select Committees. I have raised this matter with Madam Speaker and I simply want to reinforce a point. Madam Speaker has made it clear that she takes seriously the issue of Select Committee reports being given to Ministers who then retain and study them and do not return them to the House, and I believe that she intends to make a ruling. I am asking a simple question. The written answer indicates that two more Select Committee reports have been leaked, and I am simply asking that we follow the same procedure. May I ask you politely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to refer this matter to Madam Speaker in the hope that she will include this in her ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be done because the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee are looking at this matter.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 41) (HC 218), which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 94.

Division No. 91]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainger, Nick
Atherton, Ms Candy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atkins, Charlotte


Allan, Richard
Austin, John





Ballard, Jackie
Ennis, Jeff


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Flint, Caroline


Begg, Miss Anne
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Follett, Barbara


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Benton, Joe
Galloway, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Best, Harold
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blackman, Liz
Goggins, Paul


Blears, Ms Hazel
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blizzard, Bob
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Borrow, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buck, Ms Karen
Grocott, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Grogan, John


Burstow, Paul
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Harvey, Nick


Caborn, Richard
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Healey, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Caplin, Ivor
Hesford, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Caton, Martin
Hill, Keith


Cawsey, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clelland, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hurst, Alan


Coleman, Iain
Iddon, Dr Brian


Colman, Tony
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cooper, Yvette
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corston, Ms Jean



Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kidney, David


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Darvill, Keith
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lepper, David


Denham, John
Leslie, Christopher


Dismore, Andrew
Levitt, Tom


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Doran, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Drew, David
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Lock, David


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Love, Andrew


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McAllion, John


Edwards, Huw
McAvoy, Thomas


Efford, Clive
McCabe, Steve


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McCafferty, Ms Chris






McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ryan, Ms Joan


McDonagh, Siobhain
Salter, Martin


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sawford, Phil


McIsaac, Shona
Sedgemore, Brian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Shaw, Jonathan


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sheerman, Barry


McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Southworth, Ms Helen


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple-Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Perham, Ms Linda
Todd, Mark


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Plaskitt, James
Truswell, Paul


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Walley, Ms Joan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wareing, Robert N


Prosser, Gwyn
Watts, David


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quinn, Lawrie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rammell, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Willis, Phil


Raynsford, Nick
Wills, Michael


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Winnick, David


Rendel, David
Wise, Audrey


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Woolas, Phil


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. David Hanson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Beresford, Sir Paul
Chope, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Brady, Graham
Cran, James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)





Duncan, Alan
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mates, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fox, Dr Liam
May, Mrs Theresa


Fraser, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
Norman, Archie


Gibb, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Prior, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Randall, John


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hammond, Philip
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Horam, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walter, Robert



Wardle, Charles


Key, Robert
Waterson, Nigel


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whittingdale, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wilkinson, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Loughton, Tim
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last week in this Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), promised that I would receive a written response to my questions about whether the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations are legal under European Union law as far as they apply to au pairs. As the Government have not bothered to reply, should the House be considering the regulations now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The issue is whether the House approves or disapproves the motion.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

That the draft National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 73.

Division No. 92]
[7.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dean, Mrs Janet


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Denham, John


Ainger, Nick
Dismore, Andrew


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Allan, Richard
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Drew, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Drown, Ms Julia


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Atkins, Charlotte
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Austin, John
Edwards, Huw


Ballard, Jackie
Efford, Clive


Barnes, Harry
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bayley, Hugh
Ennis, Jeff


Beard, Nigel
Etherington, Bill


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flint, Caroline


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Follett, Barbara


Bennett, Andrew F
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benton, Joe
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Berry, Roger
Galloway, George


Best, Harold
Gapes, Mike


Betts, Clive
Gardiner, Barry


Blackman, Liz
Gerrard, Neil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blizzard, Bob
Goggins, Paul


Borrow, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burstow, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Butler, Mrs Christine
Grogan, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Caplin, Ivor
Healey, John


Casale, Roger
Hepburn, Stephen


Caton, Martin
Hesford, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clelland, David
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian


Cox, Tom
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Darvill, Keith
Kidney, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Ladyman, Dr Stephen





Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lepper, David
Rowlands, Ted


Leslie, Christopher
Ruddock, Joan


Levitt, Tom
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Livingstone, Ken
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin


Lock, David
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCabe, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha


McDonagh, Siobhain
Skinner, Dennis


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stringer, Graham


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mountford, Kali



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien Mike (N Warks)
Timms, Stephen


O'Hara, Eddie
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


O'Neill, Martin
Touhig, Don


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Trickett, Jon


Palmer, Dr Nick
Truswell, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pickthall, Colin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pike, Peter L
Vis, Dr Rudi


Plaskitt, James
Walley, Ms Joan


Pollard, Kerry
Wareing, Robert N


Pollard, Kerry
Watts, David


Pond, Chris
White, Brian


Pope, Greg
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn
Willis, Phil


Prosser, Gwyn
Wills, Michael


Purchase, Ken
Winnick, David


Quinn, Lawrie
Wise, Audrey


Rammell, Bill
Woolas, Phil


Rapson, Syd
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Raynsford, Nick
Wright Dr Tony (Cannock)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Rendel, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Mr. David Hanson and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Chope, Christopher






Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Duncan, Alan
Mates, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Randall, John


Gale, Roger
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hammond, Philip
Tredinnick, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert
Wilkinson, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Woodward, Shaun


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation,
That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 55.

Division No. 93]
[7.23 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Borrow, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burden, Richard


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Burstow, Paul


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Atherton, Ms Candy
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkins, Charlotte
Caborn, Richard


Austin, John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barnes, Harry
Caplin, Ivor


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Beard, Nigel
Caton, Martin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cawsey, Ian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Best, Harold
Clelland, David


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain


Blizzard, Bob
Colman, Tony





Cooper, Yvette
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Corbett, Robin



Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cousins, Jim



Cox, Tom
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cranston, Ross
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Crausby, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cummings, John
Kidney, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darvill, Keith
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lepper, David


Dawson, Hilton
Leslie, Christopher


Dean, Mrs Janet
Levitt, Tom


Denham, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dismore, Andrew
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Doran, Frank
Lock, David


Drew, David
Love, Andrew


Drown, Ms Julia
McAllion, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McCabe, Steve


Edwards, Huw
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Efford, Clive
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ennis, Jeff
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Etherington, Bill
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Flint, Caroline
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
McNulty, Tony


Follett, Barbara
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Galloway, George
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gapes, Mike
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gardiner, Barry
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Goggins, Paul
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mountford, Kali


Grocott, Bruce
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Grogan, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
O'Hara, Eddie


Healey, John
Olner, Bill


Hepburn, Stephen
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hesford, Stephen
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Pearson, Ian


Hill, Keith
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Perham, Ms Linda


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pickthall, Colin


Hoey, Kate
Pike, Peter L


Hoon, Geoffrey
Plaskitt, James


Hope, Phil
Pollard, Kerry


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pond, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pope, Greg


Hoyle, Lindsay
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hurst, Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jamieson, David
Rammell, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
Rapson, Syd






Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rendel, David
Stunell, Andrew


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rowlands, Ted
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruddock, Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tipping, Paddy


Ryan, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Salter, Martin
Touhig, Don


Sawford, Phil
Trickett, Jon


Sedgemore, Brian
Truswell, Paul


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vis, Dr Rudi


Singh Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
White, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wicks, Malcolm


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Southworth, Ms Helen



Spellar, John
Wills, Michael


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. David Hanson and


Stringer, Graham
Mr. Mike Hall.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Jenkin, Bernard


Amess, David
Key, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brady, Graham
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Chope, Christopher
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clappison, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Day, Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Spring, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Syms, Robert


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Garnier, Edward
Trend, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Wardle, Charles


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Wilkinson, John


Green, Damian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hammond, Philip



Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Hunter, Andrew
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Strategic Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Energy Efficiency (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

South Downs

Mr. David Lepper: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition initiated by Friends of the Earth, south-east office, which is based in my constituency. The petition has 21,000 signatures.
The petition states:
To the House of Commons.
The Petition of Friends of the Earth (South East Office) and others
Declares that they are concerned about the sustainable long-term future of the South Downs.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons establish a democratically elected National Park style body to succeed the South Downs Conservation Board, with strong planning powers to protect the Downs from damaging new development and to control and manage the huge recreational pressures on the Downs.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Nicholas Duff

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Stephen Hesford: May I first say how pleased I am that my application for this debate was successful in the ballot? It is about my constituent, Mr. Nicholas Duff, who is aged 40. He is a registered disabled person who suffers from the disability of light-sensitive atopic eczema. This year, he has already spent three and a half weeks in hospital due to the condition, which is so severe that he takes nine different types of medication—either creams or internal medication—daily or weekly.
Typically, Nicholas Duff has to stay indoors during daylight hours due to his light-sensitive condition. If he comes into contact with any ultraviolet light that is commonly in daylight, his skin burns. The result appears to be severe sunburn, although such a description underplays the disability from which he suffers. For example, if he walked to his local shop—a matter of a few hundred yards—he would have to stay indoors for days to recover.
A local charity was kind enough to pay for a car that has specially tinted windows, which block out the damaging ultraviolet light. That enables Mr. Nicholas Duff to have a normal life and to get out and about in the daytime. Indeed, if he had to be admitted to hospital in an emergency, or needed to see his doctor at a moment's notice, he could make the journey in his car, since he is disabled, not from getting out and about, but from getting out in the daylight.
My constituent was granted disability living allowance at the higher mobility component rate in about 1990. He was re-examined for that benefit in 1993. In September 1993, the then adjudication officer gave this decision:
I considered the evidence contained in Mr. Duff's claim form and letter. I also considered the letter from Professor Friedmann.
The evidence shows that Mr. Duff was able to walk but due to his condition was unable to walk outside in daylight without considerable discomfort and skin reaction. Having regard to the evidence before me I found that Mr. Duff therefore satisfied the higher rate mobility component".
In March 1997, Mr. Duff's case was reviewed by the Benefits Agency. At that review, the adjudication officer's decision was to withdraw his benefit. My constituent tells me that, in effect, that withdraws from him the money that enables him to use his car.
In reaching that decision, the adjudication officer said:
This is because he is not suffering from physical disablement such that he is unable to walk or virtually unable to do so".
That refusal by the adjudication officer was not believed by the local social services or by Professor Friedmann, a leading authority on this disease who is now professor of dermatology at Southampton.
In April 1997, on hearing of the refusal, Professor Friedmann immediately wrote the following letter:
I must protest in the strongest possible terms … this
disablement is
sufficiently severe that he has spent many weeks in hospitals and

requires
toxic and even dangerous drugs to attempt to get
his
condition under control … This requires … the correct form of protective film applied to the windows to shut out the harmful wavelengths of the daylight. Mr. Duff is completely dependent upon the continued use of his car which is correctly equipped … There is, therefore, a … strong medical need for this man to have assistance that enables him to maintain his means of mobility. I therefore ask you to reverse this decision".
Mr. Duff applied to have the decision reviewed. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to examine the process that Mr. Duff then underwent between then and the present day, in early 1999. He had to go through a series of hoops which he should not have gone through, and which only exacerbated his situation.
Mr. Duff applied for a review; it took four months to come about, in September 1997. The refusal was confirmed by an adjudication officer. I became involved at or about that time, and it has taken an average of a month for the Benefits Agency to reply to any of my letters.
One of the delays in the case resulted from the fact that the Duff family were so desperate on refusal of their mobility component that they wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's Office wrote to the Department of Social Security, and the Department lost the correspondence. I have on file a letter from the then junior Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), profusely apologising for that event.
Mr. Duff went for review towards the end of September 1997. The refusal read as follows:
Medical opinion states there is no physical cause of any mobility difficulties. I can see no reason why Mr. Duff could not walk a reasonable distance outdoors using appropriate clothing and creams for protection … I do not accept that Mr. Duff's disability is physical.
Mr. Duff s family cannot understand how anyone could reach that conclusion having seen Mr. Duff in the unfortunate state in which he often is during the day.
I do not want to overplay the disappointment and distress that that refusal causes, but I draw to the attention of the House the fact that the official note of the adjudication officer's decision shows that he placed reliance on the Benefits Agency medical officer's note of his examination at that time. It was wholly inadequate; I shall explain why in a moment.
Not only did the adjudication officer rely on a wholly inadequate medical opinion, but there was no mention of Professor Friedmann's letter, to which I referred a few moments ago. I know that that letter was on file and was before the tribunal. I am at a loss to understand why the adjudication officer failed to refer to Professor Friedmann's letter of that time. It was one of the reasons why the original adjudicating officer granted the disability allowance in the first place.
On hearing that Mr. Duff had again been refused his disability allowance, Professor Friedmann wrote yet another letter, dated 14 October 1997. He stated:
This letter is to express my concern at the utterly flippant tone and response in the letter declining to grant the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance to this man—my patient. … We do not normally ask for Disability Living Allowance for people with


normal types of light sensitivity. In Mr. Duff's case the condition is much more severe than usual and in fact, little or no protective benefit is obtained from using sunblock creams"—
which were suggested by the medical examiner. The letter goes on to state that
the use of powerful cytotoxic and immunosuppressive drugs
is necessary in this case, together with frequent in-patient admissions. Professor Friedmann continues:
This has probably only been successful because he"—
Mr. Duff—
has managed to avoid exposure to sunlight… Rather short exposures to daylight can cause severe exacerbation of the skin disease which may take weeks to subside… For the adjudicating officer to make the comment 'why Mr. Duff could not walk a reasonable distance outdoors using the appropriate clothing and creams for protection' shows a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the condition.
Mr. Duff appealed that decision to the social security disability appeals tribunal. That brings me to another part of my complaint about the system. He lodged his appeal in December 1997, but it was not heard until November 1998—he had to wait almost a year. That is not satisfactory. I bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend.
The appeal tribunal confirmed the decisions refusing the benefit. On hearing of the new refusal, Professor Friedmann wrote a third letter, dated 30 November 1998. He wrote:
I understand that his most recent appeal before the Tribunal was rejected on the grounds that 'he is able to walk'! I feel somehow that an almost wilful refusal to acknowledge the nature of the disability on behalf of people assessing this case has been demonstrated.
I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that. I understand from speaking to other hon. Members that it is not uncommon for people with disabilities, on being examined, to be wholly dissatisfied with the way in which they are treated at tribunals. They cannot believe that the doctors are unable to understand their condition.
In Mr. Duff's case, the formula of words found by the doctor and repeated by the adjudication officer is inadequate in medical terms, but it is no surprise to Mr. Duff and his family that it refuses disability on the ground that the claimant "is able to walk".
Professor Friedmann's letter goes on:
The whole point about Nick's case is that he can move about only if he is encased in a capsule that filters the sunlight to prevent the harmful ultra-violet rays reaching his skin. The genuineness of his case is exemplified by the fact that, even as I write, he is now in hospital with a severe relapse of his condition.
He concludes:
I feel that Nick is one of the genuinely deserving cases.
My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that I do not speak only of Nick Duff's case. Not only did Mr. Duff's father write in desperation to the Prime Minister—my hon. Friend will understand that not just Mr. Duff junior is affected; the whole family is placed under tremendous strain when dealing with such cases—but he wrote to every hon. Member about the case. I am pleased that hon. Members have stayed tonight to show support. I know from seeing their replies that they gave that support to Mr. Duff, and knowing that the House is willing to listen to their complaint and the wider issues has been of tremendous value to the family.

Nearly 50 hon. Members replied in a supportive way, and some took the trouble to mention like cases among their own constituents.
Mr. Duff senior wrote to me about an incident which occurred at the end of November, which encapsulates how the strain impinges on the family. Mr. Duff junior was again housebound and Mr. and Mrs. Duff, having been called round, found the carpet around his chair literally covered in skin. He could not stand the complaint and could not stop scratching. When the doctor saw the skin that had been cleaned up, he was amazed at how much had exfoliated. That shows the severity of the condition, if that needed underlining.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reflect on whether the refusal was proper. Looking at some of the cases involved, there seems to be a potential confusion between section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, setting out the conditions for eligibility for the disability living allowance, and the regulation made thereunder—regulation 12 of the Social Security (Disability and Living Allowance) Regulations 1991. That sets out a slightly different approach for deciding whether a claimant is entitled to the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I do not ask for a definitive answer tonight, but I have told my hon. Friend where I see a potential difference. I do not intend to detain the House tonight by going through those regulations, but I do ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that and look again at the potential difference, particularly as it affects Mr. Duff s case, if not more generally.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important matter concerning his constituent. My hon. Friend has made a solid reputation for himself as a powerful advocate here for his constituency and his constituents, and his speech this evening will enhance his reputation. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to his points.
I have read the files on Mr. Duff's applications for disability living allowance, including the letters submitted by his consultant dermatologist, Professor Friedmann. I recognise that he suffers from a severe condition and, naturally, I sympathise with the difficulties that that causes him and his family.
Before speaking about Mr. Duff's case, it would be helpful to the House if I explained the reasons why disability living allowance is awarded. It is not, and has never been, awarded as compensation for disability. Nor is it awarded because an individual has a particular disabling condition. The level of the award is determined by the effect of a person's condition on his daily life—the level of care that the person needs and the effect of the condition on his mobility.
DLA has two components. One is paid in relation to the need for help with personal care. The other, which concerns us in this case, is paid in relation to mobility needs. The mobility component is paid at two rates. The higher rate, which we are discussing, is paid when an individual is unable, or virtually unable, to walk; or has had both legs amputated at, or above, the ankle; or was born without legs or feet; or is deaf and blind; or is severely mentally impaired and has severe behavioural problems. The lower rate is paid when an individual can walk, but needs someone with him to do so.
Decisions on awards are made by adjudication officers, who are statutory office holders and are required to make impartial decisions by applying the law to the facts of the individual case, based on the evidence before them. The primary source of evidence, in all cases, will always be the evidence provided by the claimant. However, evidence is collected from other sources such as the claimant's personal carer, a school, a physiotherapist or specialists and consultants involved in the claimant's care, as well as the claimant's general practitioner.
When adjudication officers consider an application for DLA, help and guidance are available from a variety of sources—for example, the "Disability Handbook", which is produced by doctors from my Department's medical policy group in close consultation with the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board. It explains the effects of a wide range of medical conditions on a person's everyday life and often suggests where the best corroborative evidence could be sought.
All entitlement decisions carry the right of independent review—my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West raised that point—and, under review, a claim can be looked at afresh by a second adjudication officer, who can request additional evidence if necessary. If, following a review decision, the claimant remains unhappy, he has the right of appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. As the name suggests, that tribunal is entirely independent of the Department of Social Security. It provides a means of redress for people who feel that their case has been decided incorrectly by the Department. The tribunals are independent of the Government, so it is not open to Ministers to interfere with their decisions.
To summarise the benefit generally, DLA is paid not as compensation, but in accordance with the law, which sets out detailed conditions for entitlement. Claimants are provided with every opportunity to support their claim and to challenge decisions that they believe to be incorrect.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On the general point, and before my hon. Friend the Minister moves on to Mr. Duff's case, he said that one category to which severe disability allowance automatically applies is double amputees; but it did not apply to double amputees a few years ago. I brought to the House the case of one of my constituents, which had many similarities to that of Mr. Duff. My constituent was in severe trouble and was a double amputee. A number of other cases were pressed by hon. Members and an adjustment was made to the law so that it applied to those cases. Mr. Duff may be in a category concerning an unusual area which has not been considered previously. There may need to be an adjustment in the law.

Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes a useful intervention and, if I have time, I will refer to it later in my speech. The law states that the higher rate mobility component of DLA is paid to people who cannot or virtually cannot walk. Double amputees are covered for that reason.
I now turn to Mr. Duff's case. Mr. Duff had an award of disability living allowance higher rate mobility component, which was due to expire on 15 August 1997,

and he asked for his claim to be renewed. Once the evidence had been studied, the adjudication officer determined that Mr. Duff was no longer entitled to DLA. From the information provided, it looks now as though a mistake was made when Mr. Duff was awarded DLA, and we had to correct that. I recognise that it has caused my hon. Friend's constituent considerable inconvenience and upset, and I apologise for that on behalf of my Department.
I appreciate that the withdrawal of Mr. Duff's DLA has been distressing for him and for his family. I also recognise my hon. Friend's very real concern that the decision in Mr. Duff's case was wrong. I have to say, however, that Mr. Duff's benefit was not withdrawn without proper consideration by the adjudication authorities.

Mr. Hesford: Will the Minister consider whether some of these adjudication officers are up to the job? Are they fully qualified to recognise what is in front of them?

Mr. Bayley: The adjudication officers are trained to work according to the law. They and the doctors employed by my Department often anger the people whose cases they consider, particularly when they turn down their applications for benefit. Sometimes, that is a natural reaction, but I accept that, on occasions, the way in which adjudication officers conduct their business, although strictly in accordance with the instructions they have been provided, gives rise to offence. My Department is seeking to improve the position. In consultation with bodies that represent disabled people, we are drawing up new programmes for further and additional training, so that those who deal with claims from disabled people are sensitive to the disability on which they are adjudicating.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I make a quick suggestion?

Mr. Bayley: I have only a few minutes left and, in fairness to our hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, who raised this case, I should reply to his points. If there is time later, I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Duff took full advantage of the system of review and appeal which I have just outlined. Two separate adjudication officers and an independent appeal tribunal have agreed that Mr. Duff is not entitled to the mobility component of DLA because he can walk.
There is case law from the Court of Appeal. In 1996, in the case of Diment and Hewitt—two individuals with serious skin conditions in which the ultraviolet rays in sunlight caused blistering, lesions and irritation—the Court of Appeal agreed that the conditions of entitlement relating to the higher rate of the DLA mobility component were not satisfied because the reaction to sunlight was not related to the act of walking. In addition, it found that entitlement arose only when the severe discomfort was as a result of the physical act of walking.
As to the eligibility criteria for DLA, it has long been accepted that the current tests of the need for help with care and mobility reflect the effect of a disability and the associated extra costs. The criteria are based on the findings of research undertaken by the Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys in the 1980s, which led to the development of DLA.
My hon. Friend referred to a possible discrepancy between the 1992 Act and the regulations. I have looked into that, and I do not think that there is a discrepancy. However, he has asked me to review the matter, and I shall do so. I shall write to him on that point.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the delay that claimants often face between appealing against a decision on benefit entitlement and getting that appeal heard. He is right to do so. Average waiting times are currently running at around seven months, which is clearly unacceptable. In fact, it is one of the main reasons for the Government's root-and-branch overhaul of the adjudication system, which is well on the way to implementation. The Social Security Act 1998 laid the foundations for a new system, and regulations implementing that will soon be presented to the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned the loss of his constituent's letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I accept that that happened, and it should not have happened. I also accept that Mr. Duff s case has not been dealt with well by my Department. Mr. Duff has experienced both delay and mismanagement, and I apologise to him for that. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my apologies.
This is not the service that a member of the public is entitled to expect—

The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes past Eight o'clock.